# Loake shoes



## maltess (Sep 9, 2008)

Hello to everybody


Any experience with Loake shoes in terms of quality? they seem to have some nice models at a good price

Best regards


----------



## banjo1071 (Feb 26, 2008)

Salut
I do not think, that you will find many Loakelovers in this forum. I, on th other hand, liken them. They do not (by far) represent the pinnacle in english shoemaking. But they have some nice models, esp if you buy them as seconds. I like to wear then on rainy days, when you don`t want to waste your "real" shoes....
They are much better than 90% of the shoes worn today on the streets, but by far not as good as, let`s say, Churchs, bespoke models or other highquality brands.

Greets Banjo


----------



## BarringtonAyre (Nov 9, 2008)

I have to agree that nothing compares to a pair of Church's shoes. I have owned a pair of Loakes before and I have to say although they looked good they were incredibly uncomfortable even after wearing them in and the they fell apart quite quickly. I'd say shop around a bit more as you may find better quality in a shoe maker who doesn't have such a big name and therefore spends more time on the quality of the shoes rather then advertising etc.


----------



## maltess (Sep 9, 2008)

Thanks a lot , would you know a place online to get crockett and jones seconds?

best regards


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

If you want a pair just for general wear, but even then I would say only at sale price - as Barkers are cheaper but a better shoe.

Do not know about C&J seconds, but Herring have second's for Church's
https://www.herringshoes.co.uk/

They second's for Loake

Pediwear sell C&J - if you have a look in Jan, they should have a sale
https://www.pediwear.co.uk

Edwards of Manchester also stock C&J and many other Northampton-based shoemakers, not sure if they delivery outside the Uk though
https://www.edwardsofmanchester.co.uk/shop/crockett-and-jones


----------



## mysharona (Nov 4, 2008)

I own _a_ pair of Loake captoes, and I must say, they do hold one hell of a beautiful shine. In terms of comfort and construction, I prefer my Allen Edmonds, but Loakes are not bad. Kevin Spacey wears 'em! So does Paul Bettany. At least they draw decent endorsers.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I love Loakes. The feel, the look, the quality.


----------



## Colnago (Dec 28, 2008)

I have 3 pairs of loake shoes. To me, it is more about fit than it is about the label. They are not the best shoes I own, but I do enjoy them. They are very comfortable. They are also cost effective compared to other English shoes (just got a pair of Loake chukka books this week for £100). 

Best regards


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Exactly Colnago! For me, labels and where and how a shoe was manufactured are totally uninteresting and irrelevant. In the past, I've bought Loakes because I prefer the look over other makes (especially the rather too dated look of Sargents) and they've fitted my feet better and more comfortably than Cheaneys, Churches, Sargents,and Lloyds. Price has never been a deciding factor.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

Shoes in the Loake 1880 range are excellent and offer high quality leather and construction just as Loake say they do. I personally would not want anything higher quality than this. And they are men's shoes. For me the dainty waists of some higher end shoes are no attraction at all being more suited to women's shoes in my estimation .At around $200 dollars, Loake 1880s are also outstanding value for money. The cheaper Shoemaker and L1 collections are not as substantial but they do have some nice lasts, which I would like to see available in the 1880s. Looking forward to Loake's new 2009 offerings that should soon be with us if they are not already.


----------



## kelliw (Aug 13, 2008)

I am not a big fan........ I don't think the quality is that great.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

kelliw said:


> I am not a big fan........ I don't think the quality is that great.


Compared to what? Which Loakes have you had?


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Loake shoes are very sound but they do not come with any bragging rights if that is important to you.

Still for £69 or £79 in most London outlets you cannot go wrong.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Stick w/ the 1880 (calfskin) range and you're getting a decent shoe for the price.

Once you wear out the soles you probably won't want to bother w/ getting a rebuild, but at the prices that 1880s go for it's best to buy a new pair anyhow.

They take a shine well, and I always own a pair or two. I tend to use them as my dress shoes for days when it's wet out or I know I'll be doing a lot of city walking.

I agree w/ Hector F. about the burly, manly cut of the classic Loakes (pooh-poohed by some as blobby, but not a drawback in my book). 

1880s are at a pretty decent sweet spot in terms of quality, price, durability, and elegant appearance. Good shoes to start w/ if you're just getting into benchmade English footwear.


----------



## VincentC (May 23, 2008)

Considering shoes are for walking on dirty streets and will get dirty i dont think people should get too precious about shoes.

As far as im concerned Loakes are great shoes. Ive got a pair of 771b shoes. I dont even think they are Loakes best.....1880's are arent they? But my 771b are excellent and comfortable out of the box. I sometimes dont want to wear them in case of ruining them and getting them dirty.

People should try mentioning the style of their 1880's to give me tips on what to buy. Ive mentioned mine are 771b


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

VincentC said:


> Considering shoes are for walking on dirty streets and will get dirty i dont think people should get too precious about shoes.
> 
> As far as im concerned Loakes are great shoes. Ive got a pair of 771b shoes. I dont even think they are Loakes best.....1880's are arent they? But my 771b are excellent and comfortable out of the box. I sometimes dont want to wear them in case of ruining them and getting them dirty.
> 
> People should try mentioning the style of their 1880's to give me tips on what to buy. Ive mentioned mine are 771b


The 771s area are a great shoe. They are built on the 3625 last and are the closest thing around that is reminiscent of what was once popularly known as a 'Como' during the latter mod days in Britain. It's a shame that they are only available in 'polished' finishes though. An unpolished calf that could take a natural high shine, as all Loakes seem to do most splendidly, as others have pointed out, would be nice.

If you are happy with the 771s you should investigate the 026 lasts in the 1880 range and the 3525s in the Shoemaker collection. Shoes to try are the Exeter, Durham and Thames the latter sadly now discontinued but still available if you search for them.

It's also worth pointing out that Herring have a rebadged version of the 1880s at a slightly keener price and a supposedly even finer calf! I personally have two pairs of Richmonds which I am particularly fond of.


----------



## SimonTemplar (Feb 3, 2008)

I wear the Loake 202's as my everyday shoe to the office, and I love them!


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

I've often thought about doing the same. The 202 is another shoes built on the 3625 last. These are pretty good for my feet, being quite wide where most people's feet are widest, yet with not too much volume due to quite a low instep- lower than Loake 026 last at any rate. Th attraction of a low maintenance polished binder shoe such as the 202 wingtip, is a consideration for a work shoe. I've had Dexter binder shoes before that have stayed respectable for 11 years. I wonder how the Loake polished binders will endure?


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

ToryBoy said:


> If you want a pair just for general wear, but even then I would say only at sale price - as Barkers are cheaper but a better shoe.


I think we need to be more specific than this and compare like with like. Most shoe manufacturers have ranges and Loake and Barker are no exception. From what I can gauge, from owning Loake 1880s and closely inspecting Barker's Hand- Crafted collection, Loake have the edge on price and possibly on quality. With regard to that, however, the proof of the pudding really has to be in extended wearing.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

I have never owned a pair of Loake shoes. Its been a conscious decision.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

gnatty8 said:


> I have never owned a pair of Loake shoes. Its been a conscious decision.


Yes, there's certainly no bragging rights that go with buying a pair of Loakes. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

In my experience Loake's 1880 range meet the minimum requirements for a dress shoe. Their cheaper ranges have too much flimsy and/or synthetic (i.e., ugly and non-durable) materials, in particular nasty linings that don't breath, and cardboard-like soles - a false economy.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

kelliw said:


> I am not a big fan........ I don't think the quality is that great.


Based on what? And are you referring to relative quality or quality per se as a product?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Hector Freemantle said:


> And they are men's shoes. For me the dainty waists of some higher end shoes are no attraction at all being more suited to women's shoes in my estimation.


THANK YOU Hector, that was EXACTLY what I was trying to put my finger on but couldn't quite identify, especially with Sargents and 2 or 3 of the
other high end brands; that feeling that they just look old fashioned and slightly feminine - which was quite Edwardian actually, so I suppose that is what makes them look old fashioned. I conclude that the two go hand in hand.
"Too dainty, too dandyish" would be a good way to précis it then.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> THANK YOU Hector, that was EXACTLY what I was trying to put my finger on but couldn't quite identify, especially with Sargents and 2 or 3 of the
> other high end brands; that feeling that they just look old fashioned and slightly feminine - which was quite Edwardian actually, so I suppose that is what makes them look old fashioned. I conclude that the two go hand in hand.
> "Too dainty, too dandyish" would be a good way to précis it then.


In an historical sense perhaps we ought to say: " Too feminine, too foppish."

The dandy was perhaps an often unfairly maligned creature.

But back to Loakes. I wonder if they made a conscious decision to make footwear that appealed to those less in touch with their feminine sides? Or were they merely producing solid, yet handsome, encasings for the feet that actually could be worn on pavements rather than being reserved for mincing around on oriental ruggery?


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Rich said:


> In my experience Loake's 1880 range meet the minimum requirements for a dress shoe. Their cheaper ranges have too much flimsy and/or synthetic (i.e., ugly and non-durable) materials, in particular nasty linings that don't breath, and cardboard-like soles - a false economy.


I agree entirely with Rich's analysis. I have tried Loake 1880s but found the plastic middle to the heel and the lack of comfort underfoot too much to bear. I had been spoilt by Church's shoes by this time in my life. A friend of mine says " If you've never had shoes costing more than £130 then you'll like Loakes but if you have had shoes costing £200 you won't be happy with Loakes.

So, the moral of this is you may be very happy with Loakes and they certainly make some good looking shoes in the 1880 range but lets not pretend they're as good as shoes costing £250 plus - you do get what you pay for in the shoe world ( mostly!)


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

Leather man said:


> ... I have tried Loake 1880s but found the plastic middle to the heel and the lack of comfort underfoot too much to bear. ...


Do you know for a fact that there is a plastic middle to the heel? The 1880s have the symbols that declare leather upper, inner and outer. Wouldn't a hidden plastic part to the heel put them in danger of contravening the Trade Descriptions Act ( if there is such a thing)? I'm assuming that you are speaking from having researched this, but it does seem bizarre for Loake to save what can't amount to very much per unit and risk losing custom as a result.



Leather man said:


> I had been spoilt by Church's shoes by this time in my life. A friend of mine says " If you've never had shoes costing more than £130 then you'll like Loakes but if you have had shoes costing £200 you won't be happy with Loakes.


Can't agree. These days Loake and AEs are my shoes of choice, but back in the 70s I survived for 3 years on 3 pairs of Bally of Switzerland - a monk, a loafer and a laceup. They were good shoes. Much more expensive than Loake, aand certainly a lot daintier. But I doubt if I'd say thay were better quality or more comfortable. With a Loake you know you've got a serious pair of shoes on your feet!


----------



## Groover (Feb 11, 2008)

We've been down this road before:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=79114&highlight=Loake

IMO, the 1880 range are nice shoes, good styling and comfortable lasts. However, the leather is NOT up to the quality of Church's, C&J (standard range), and the higher end manufacturers.

What I am NOT saying is that they're a poor shoe because they're not and hell I've had enough pairs to know. But having my Loake Norwich and my C&J hand in hand the leather is better on the C&J, hence the difference in price.

With the British shoe industry (in Northampton that is) being so incestuous the price difference between the remaining manufacturers comes down to two fundamental costs:

Cost of materials.
Volume of work undertaken.

As Tricker (on the other thread) stated, all manufacturers are fighting for each others business, and each manufacturer has it's own place in that market. That was one of the reasons discussed about the Sargents downfall in that they didn't have that market place, but I digress. Tricker stated that the skins all come from more or less the same place so it depends on the quality purchased to reflect in the finished shoe. In addition, companies with high volume can offer lower prices but certainly not to the tune of 100-150 in the difference between Loake & C&J for instance.

That said I'm still happy to buy Loakes whilst in the sales, there's some good deals out there.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Leather man said:


> I agree entirely with Rich's analysis. I have tried Loake 1880s but found the plastic middle to the heel and the lack of comfort underfoot too much to bear. I had been spoilt by Church's shoes by this time in my life. A friend of mine says " If you've never had shoes costing more than £130 then you'll like Loakes but if you have had shoes costing £200 you won't be happy with Loakes.
> 
> So, the moral of this is you may be very happy with Loakes and they certainly make some good looking shoes in the 1880 range but lets not pretend they're as good as shoes costing £250 plus - you do get what you pay for in the shoe world ( mostly!)


So applying your logic then, you'd be happy to pay a ridiculous sums for a piar of, for example, Paul Smiths, and then what? Convince yourself that they are more comfortable than every other cheaper shoe simply because they cost more? Good luck with that. Seems to me like you've fallen victim to the type of shoe marketing that claims that quality costs! Which of course is nonsense. Labels and marketing are what cost, not quality.

And to conclude, I disagree with your last statement, "you get what you pay for". No, you don't. What you get is what the high end labels think the market can bear pricewise without pricing themselves out of business regardless of the quality of the shoe.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

This is what Tricker said:



tricker said:


> Basically we are all copying each others shoes to try to get business, thats how it works, some factories are more geared towards certain styles though, or have certain shapes of last that buyers prefer, we all source the same materials, and the only difference really is that your lobbs and greens are hand lasted and all the rest use a '4A' pull toe laster to automate lasting, we all machine welt and sole stitch, unless you order handmades, then they are hand lasted and hand welted to a hand made insole, still machine stitched though.


----------



## Groover (Feb 11, 2008)

Hector Freemantle said:


> This is what Tricker said:


And this:



Tricker said:


> EG and Lobbs shoes are more traditionally made than ours, they are bedlasted, pulled on by hand, Lobbs make 100 pairs per day, EG less, something between 20 and 50 per day, there are more man hours going into their shoes, more hand work at lasting, and a lot more time spent on finishing them after the shoe is constructed, they are more likely to use only the most expensive leathers as they can sell more of these at higher prices due to their name, and hand lasting methods, so yes, they are using better leathers than say 50% of other shoes being made elsewhere, but the price offsets this, the others are using these materials for their top lines only.
> 
> When you last by hand you can use more delicate leathers, if you put that same leather into a machine laster, you are inevitably going to have some damages, which costs money, so a more durable leather is used, this work isnt suitable for a lot of the bigger manufacturers who make more pairs per day to fulfill orders, its really only for lobbs and greens to make. We make 200 pairs a day, C&J over 400 pairs a day, churches similar, its just not practical for us to make this shoe on a regular basis. A hand lasted shoe is far superior to a machine lasted shoe, it gives a much better feather, enabling a much closer stitch and trim, and is an artform, the true skill of shoe making that hasnt changed for hundreds of years.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

Thanks, Groover. So we are looking at better leather and more handworking = more cost= higher price.

But for me the law of diminishing return means that Loake 1880s is as high as I want to go.

Having said that I would be interested in seeing photos of well- worn higher end shoes. For me durability is very important. Waste not:want not.


----------



## Groover (Feb 11, 2008)

Hector Freemantle said:


> Thanks, Groover. So we are looking at better leather and more handworking = more cost= higher price.
> 
> But for me the law of diminishing return means that Loake 1880s is as high as I want to go.
> 
> Having said that I would be interested in seeing photos of well- worn higher end shoes. For me durability is very important. Waste not:want not.


Yes Hector, that is in essence the nature of the business in Northampton. As I said in my earlier post, each manufacturer has it's own "section" of the market. Considering the UK shoe industry has been in decline for a long long time each firm has had to market itself and position itself very carefully to the point where each has it's own part and from what we can see in the current climate is surviving off it.

I would say that would be true for the tanneries also, they need to supply products to suit all customers. As Tricker said, Greens and Lobb etc buy the expensive skins because they know they can make a return on them, whereas Loakes, C&J, Church's et all wouldn't be making the required level of profit to justify the expense, so in turn use the other grades of skin available and have manufacturing processes to maximise their product output.

He also pointed out that all manufacturers had the capability to produce any shoe as good as they wanted to, essentially they have access to the same products and use the same processes, which I beleive can only be a good thing as it raises the bar for eveyone to stay on their toes.

You're clearly happy with your Loakes and that's a good thing. As a company they seem to be doing well, so I guess the old saying "If something aint broke, don't fix it" would be their motto. The new website is good with some videos on how shoes are made.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Hector Freemantle said:


> But for me the law of diminishing return means that Loake 1880s is as high as I want to go.


This is sensible. Loake 1880s are classic, good value for money and widely available cut-price. You will be, nine times out of ten, the best-shod man in the office. I would recommend them as a first venture into quality shoes. The next step, when you're ready, being to get a pair of Church's or C&J in the same style for comparison... But you can skip the lower end Loakes.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

You've obviously made the comparison, Rich. In your experience, then, just how much better are Church and C& J? A difficult question I know but we are talking about comparisons here. BTW do you have any well-worn Church and C&KJ that you can photo and then post the pics to give me an idea of how an upgrade would look in 5 or 10 years time? It'd be appreciated.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Hector Freemantle said:


> Do you know for a fact that there is a plastic middle to the heel? The 1880s have the symbols that declare leather upper, inner and outer. Wouldn't a hidden plastic part to the heel put them in danger of contravening the Trade Descriptions Act ( if there is such a thing)? I'm assuming that you are speaking from having researched this, but it does seem bizarre for Loake to save what can't amount to very much per unit and risk losing custom as a result.
> 
> Can't agree. These days Loake and AEs are my shoes of choice, but back in the 70s I survived for 3 years on 3 pairs of Bally of Switzerland - a monk, a loafer and a laceup. They were good shoes. Much more expensive than Loake, aand certainly a lot daintier. But I doubt if I'd say thay were better quality or more comfortable. With a Loake you know you've got a serious pair of shoes on your feet!


Dear Hector - yes I have researched this in so far as I've owned three pairs of Loake 1880s - I thought I had stated I'd owned the shoes in my first post? I found walking in them uncomfortable at the heel so examined them careful prodding and poking the heel block and thus discovered the middle is plastic. My shoes are between 2 and 4 years old so maybe things have changed?

To answer your second matter you raise with me - please refer to my parenthesised comment - *mostly*


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> So applying your logic then, you'd be happy to pay a ridiculous sums for a piar of, for example, Paul Smiths, and then what? Convince yourself that they are more comfortable than every other cheaper shoe simply because they cost more? Good luck with that. Seems to me like you've fallen victim to the type of shoe marketing that claims that quality costs! Which of course is nonsense. Labels and marketing are what cost, not quality.
> 
> And to conclude, I disagree with your last statement, "you get what you pay for". No, you don't. What you get is what the high end labels think the market can bear pricewise without pricing themselves out of business regardless of the quality of the shoe.


As I have said to Hector just now - please read again my original post where you will find in parenthesis the word "*mostly"*


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Rich said:


> This is sensible. Loake 1880s are classic, good value for money and widely available cut-price. You will be, nine times out of ten, the best-shod man in the office. I would recommend them as a first venture into quality shoes. The next step, when you're ready, being to get a pair of Church's or C&J in the same style for comparison... But you can skip the lower end Loakes.


I disagree. The law of diminishing returns does not kick in until you get to C&J /Church's - thereafter it does - as far as longevity is concerned anyway.

Loake 1880 are certainly a good entry level shoe in terms of English shoes but you can get much much better value for money with the Church's seconds that Herrings shoes sell on their website and they will last Hector much longer.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

Hector Freemantle said:


> Thanks, Groover. So we are looking at better leather and more handworking = more cost= higher price.
> 
> But for me the law of diminishing return means that Loake 1880s is as high as I want to go.
> 
> Having said that I would be interested in seeing *photos of well- worn higher end shoes.* For me durability is very important. Waste not:want not.


Do you know what you are asking for? I am not sure such a thing exists on the fora, or potentially, even the internets themselves..


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

Leather man said:


> I disagree. The law of diminishing returns does not kick in until you get to C&J /Church's - thereafter it does - as far as longevity is concerned anyway.
> 
> Loake 1880 are certainly a good entry level shoe in terms of English shoes but you can get much much better value for money with the Church's seconds that Herrings shoes sell on their website and they will last Hector much longer.


Interesting and forthright. I might just buy a pair. If they are not in pristine condition 20 years from now I'll know who to come looking for!:icon_smile:


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

gnatty8 said:


> Do you know what you are asking for? I am not sure such a thing exists on the fora, or potentially, even the internets themselves..


You mean that people don't actually wear them! They just buy them and photograph them and put them away to periodically take out and fondle? Oh dear, I hope not.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Hector Freemantle said:


> You've obviously made the comparison, Rich. In your experience, then, just how much better are Church and C& J? A difficult question I know but we are talking about comparisons here. BTW do you have any well-worn Church and C&KJ that you can photo and then post the pics to give me an idea of how an upgrade would look in 5 or 10 years time? It'd be appreciated.


Here are some differences between Loake and Church's (similar models).

It's mostly a question of materials and finishing, I think:

Loake uppers are thinner, less even-grained (so they crease unevenly) and drier/stiffer-looking, and the colour is not so deep or rich as on Church's. The stitching is finer and more carefully done on Church's. Loake soles are a little stiffer and less comfortable to walk in. Church's heels are dense and make a very nice "leathery" sound when walking versus Loake's drier sound. Church's lining is superior - silky to the touch against Loake's smooth but slightly "plasticky" feel. Church's seem to breathe a bit better - they are certainly much, much more comfortable in hot weather. New Church's smell strongly of leather: new Loakes smell of leather too, but also of chemicals - glue, plasticizers maybe. Church's shoes are a bit heavier overall, more substantial. Having a lot of dress shoes I've never worn a pair enough to wear them out, so I can't compare ultimate durability. Comfort and appearance are my priorities. I'll see if I can manage some pics.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

Rich said:


> Here are some differences between Loake and Church's (similar models).
> 
> It's mostly a question of materials and finishing, I think:
> 
> Loake uppers are thinner, less even-grained (so they crease unevenly) and drier/stiffer-looking, and the colour is not so deep or rich as on Church's. The stitching is finer and more carefully done on Church's. Loake soles are a little stiffer and less comfortable to walk in. Church's heels are dense and make a very nice "leathery" sound when walking versus Loake's drier sound. Church's lining is superior - silky to the touch against Loake's smooth but slightly "plasticky" feel. Church's seem to breathe a bit better - they are certainly much, much more comfortable in hot weather. New Church's smell strongly of leather: new Loakes smell of leather too, but also of chemicals - glue, plasticizers maybe. Church's shoes are a bit heavier overall, more substantial. Having a lot of dress shoes I've never worn a pair enough to wear them out, so I can't compare ultimate durability. Comfort and appearance are my priorities. I'll see if I can manage some pics.


I certainly wouldn't want anything thicker than a Loake 1880! I find them thick yet after a few wearings and polishings very supple. Dryness is something I haven't experienced. How many pairs of 1880s have you had?

Color is something I can take care of myself. That's all part of the fun. I don't really want to pay for this.

I have never smelt anything at all plasticky coming from a Loake. They smell like leather to me. Of course leather smell is the oil coming out that fades with time and how strongly they smell of leather will depend on how long they've been stored.

Yes, I think you are right on the weight. Church shoes that I've looked at have been a bit heavier.

I look forward to the pics. It surprises me that you've never actually worn out a pair of dress shoes! How many years have you been buying your own shoes? :icon_smile_wink:

Once again thanks for the analysis. Really look forward to the photos.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

Hector Freemantle said:


> You mean that people don't actually wear them! They just buy them and photograph them and put them away to periodically take out and fondle? Oh dear, I hope not.


Now Hector. Coin collectors do not actually use their treasures to purchase gumballs from the gumball machine now do they?


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

I have two pairs of Loakes (Durham and Aldwych). I've been buying all-leather dress shoes for about 20 years, since I decided to wear a suit to work every day. Before that I bought mostly casual rubber-soled shoes. I have about 20 pairs of good dress shoes in rotation. The oldest of these, a pair of Church's monks, have had three sets of Topys and new heels, but the uppers and linings are in perfect condition. They have stretched a bit though...


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

gnatty8 said:


> Now Hector. Coin collectors do not actually use their treasures to purchase gumballs from the gumball machine now do they?


So it's about collecting, then? I used to know a really rich guy in London in the 70s who did loads of business with Saudis shortly after oil became worth something. He had a house on the river that had been owned by that British Royal that abdicated and in one of his spare rooms he had a box that was full of really, really expensive shoes. He certainly wore them and never thought about collecting and when they got scuffed he just had one of his servants fling them in that box.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Hector Freemantle said:


> Interesting and forthright. I might just buy a pair. If they are not in pristine condition 20 years from now I'll know who to come looking for!:icon_smile:


:icon_smile_big:


----------



## jjl5000 (May 14, 2006)

Hector Freemantle said:


> Do you know for a fact that there is a plastic middle to the heel? The 1880s have the symbols that declare leather upper, inner and outer. Wouldn't a hidden plastic part to the heel put them in danger of contravening the Trade Descriptions Act ( if there is such a thing)? I'm assuming that you are speaking from having researched this, but it does seem bizarre for Loake to save what can't amount to very much per unit and risk losing custom as a result.


I have had around half a dozen pairs of 1880's. I departed company with the last pair only a couple of months ago. I have heels that tend to rub the inner leather lining and eventually, the lining will completely wear away. This is not a poor fitting issue in the usual sense, I have been told I have a condition called 'African heel'. The point is I can confirm Leather Man's claim; having actually worn the inner lining away, the heel stiffeners in 1880's are plastic.

Whilst I feel Loakes offer a good shoe for the money, I would concur with others that Church's really are worth the extra. Beyond this level, the law of diminishing returns become significant.

Church's (on their second sole)









Loake 1880 (on their original sole with sole stitching fully intact i.e not much wear)


----------



## Groover (Feb 11, 2008)

Legate & Norwich if I'm not mistaken JJL5000?

My compliments on the Church's, those look superb!

I've ordered a couple of pairs of Norwich as it's being discontinued on the 029 last, a favourite of mine.


----------



## Groover (Feb 11, 2008)

Leather man said:


> you can get much much better value for money with the Church's seconds that Herrings shoes sell on their website


Just picked up a pair of Tasmania in Black Calf :icon_cheers:


----------



## jjl5000 (May 14, 2006)

Groover said:


> Legate & Norwich if I'm not mistaken JJL5000?
> 
> My compliments on the Church's, those look superb!
> 
> I've ordered a couple of pairs of Norwich as it's being discontinued on the 029 last, a favourite of mine.


Thanks Groover. Your quite right!



Groover said:


> Just picked up a pair of Tasmania in Black Calf :icon_cheers:


Congrats :icon_smile:


----------



## VincentC (May 23, 2008)

Hector Freemantle said:


> The 771s area are a great shoe. They are built on the 3625 last and are the closest thing around that is reminiscent of what was once popularly known as a 'Como' during the latter mod days in Britain. It's a shame that they are only available in 'polished' finishes though. An unpolished calf that could take a natural high shine, as all Loakes seem to do most splendidly, as others have pointed out, would be nice.
> 
> If you are happy with the 771s you should investigate the 026 lasts in the 1880 range and the 3525s in the Shoemaker collection. Shoes to try are the Exeter, Durham and Thames the latter sadly now discontinued but still available if you search for them.
> 
> It's also worth pointing out that Herring have a rebadged version of the 1880s at a slightly keener price and a supposedly even finer calf! I personally have two pairs of Richmonds which I am particularly fond of.


Exeter, Durham, Thames i will keep an eye out for. Im not to precious or is it pretencious when it comes to wearing shoes. As long as they look good and are comfortable that is my main worries.
Ive got a pair of clarkes derby type shoe that i wear mostly and they cost about £25 and i have to say they are so comfortable. I am trying to wear them out before wearing my 771b Loakes again. WHich ive only worn about 10 times in 5 years.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Do those of you who own Loake 1880s and Church's find the same difference in sizing as me? I take a Church's size 8.5 but a Loake size 8 - a good half size difference. Oh, and there is indeed a lump of plastic in the heels of my 1880s - well disguised.

The question of where the law of diminishing returns becomes critical is an interesting one. This is bound to be very subjective, and obviously depends on resources and priorities. Church's being roughly double the price of Loakes 1880, I can understand people stopping at Loakes. 1880s cost only about 50% more than rubbish. Also, when you start moving up the ladder it's difficult to climb down again! I'd say if you're a fairly conservative, suit-wearing sort of person, then Loake 1880 are the cheapest shoes that won't let you down socially or professionally and you won't be thoroughly disappointed with (plastic heels notwithstanding... though if I'd known...)


----------



## Geoff Gander (Apr 4, 2007)

Rich - You're right about the perils of climbing up the ladder! When I statrted posting here I had heard about C&J shoes, and they became the Holy Grail of shoes for me. When I finally got a pair, I was convinced that they were the best pair I'd ever had - there was no way I would ever accept less.

Then I tried EG. The 202 last fit me perfectly - the best arch support I had ever experienced in any shoe. My Chelseas won me over to the dark side, and now I've bought another pair (different colour). I dare not go further.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Geoff Gander said:


> I dare not go further.


Hmm... we'll see!

Incidentally, I've just inspected another pair of Loakes I have, the Dainite-soled Badminton wing-tip brogue. They too have a plastic layer in the heel, and what appears to be a plastic welt strip! They also have part-cloth lining, and the uppers are a bit stiff. Good value for money for a pair of gardening shoes, yes. Just acceptable as casual wear.


----------



## Groover (Feb 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> Hmm... we'll see!
> 
> Incidentally, I've just inspected another pair of Loakes I have, the Dainite-soled Badminton wing-tip brogue. They too have a plastic layer in the heel, and what appears to be a plastic welt strip! They also have part-cloth lining, and the uppers are a bit stiff. Good value for money for a pair of gardening shoes, yes. Just acceptable as casual wear.


I have considered Badminton as a pair for knocking about with the boys down the pub on a saturday, BUT, I know Church's Grafton is waiting in the background.....hmm:devil:


----------

