# Allen Edmonds sole issues - advice needed



## michaelmc (Sep 20, 2011)

I bought my first two pairs of Allen Edmonds shoes at the beginning of May and I've been alternating them since: 2-3 times per week per pair in the 4.5 months since I received them, never the same pair on back-to-back days and avoiding wet surfaces with the leather-soled pair. On that pair (AE Leeds), the sole stitching has worn through around the toe and the front edge of the lower sole is now separating from the sole's upper portion. This is a little concerning, since I was expecting to get a bit more wear out of them than a third of a year before having to have work done, but I figured whatever, it's my first leather sole, I guess this is normal.

So I called AE today to get advice on what to do. The rep I spoke with advised me to contact the store where I bought them. I was surprised, since I figured this was normal wear and tear, but she said that either I would need to return them to the store "if I felt it was a defect" or send them in for recrafting (as AE doesn't offer a full-sole-only repair option, just heels-only or full recrafting). I don't necessarily think they warrant a return, but I don't want to waste a recrafting this soon: I expected to get years of use out of these, not a year and a half with 4 months between recraftings. 

My first question to the forum is: is this sort of wear on the sole's toe normal?

Second question: what do I do? I see three options: 

1. Send them back to Land's End and get a new pair. I'm unhappy with the wear, but don't know that they're defective.
2. Send them in for recrafting. But, since they can only be recrafted 4-5 times, this seems like a waste.
3. Find a good cobbler (any recs in Philadelphia?) and have a new sole put on, and really hope this doesn't make them un-recraftable in the future.

Having a toe tap put on regardless of what I choose is probably a good idea going forward...


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Send them back, this is not normal wear by a long shot. I'm rough on the toes of my shoes, but nothing needed to be done for well over a year. Even so, the layers shouldn't be separating.


----------



## maximar (Jan 11, 2010)

You have any pics?


----------



## michaelmc (Sep 20, 2011)

maximar said:


> You have any pics?


Not offhand, but I'll try to take some tomorrow.


----------



## Angeland (Aug 24, 2011)

*Ditto on send pics*

Don't do anything rash before sending pictures. What you describe is very easily the normal process of a show breaking it. The leather of the sole wears at the toe, and it may wear down to the stitching fairly quickly but should reach a steady state, with a stitch or two mashed to unrecognizability and one or two broken. Your stride is shaping the sole at the toe, in other words. This will always happen, unless you walk like a robot, and there is no stitching material known to modern technology that will not fray when subject to the grinding motion of a human foot on concrete.

Minor separation of the layers of a leather sole in the area of the waist is also normal, especially if you live in New York or Chicago or some other city where you are walking a lot. Every leather soled shoe I own has separation wide enough in which to stick a pin or even a very sharp pencil point (and I own Church's, Aldens, AEs, Red Wings, Sargents, Crockett & Jones, Trickers, and a few others).

Alternating shoes preserves the interior of the shoe by allowing the shoe to dry, which forestalls wearing through of the leather liner and the stitching that holds the upper together, especially at the heel. The sole doesn't take notice of days off.


----------



## michaelmc (Sep 20, 2011)

Photos of the sole:


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Well, they don’t look very good, do they? 

I would take these to the closest company owned store and see what they say.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Take those back, perhaps but go with nylon toe and heel taps on your next go around!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

What do you walk from Philly to Pittsburgh everyday? That looks like a lot more than 4 months of normal wear on the soles.


----------



## michaelmc (Sep 20, 2011)

Okay, thanks for the reassurances, folks. The wear estimate above (2-3x week since early May) is totally above board. I occasionally walk the 4/5 of a mile to the trolley to or from work but usually take the bus. Beyond that, another block to the office from my stop, and then we have nice carpeted office floors. I'm not too heavy, either, about 185 lbs.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Every pair of shoes I own has a very small toe tap on them. It's worked well for many years.


----------



## Bandit44 (Oct 1, 2010)

The sole is definitely de-laminating, but to me, it looks like you needed to take those to a cobbler a month ago... before the toe wore through to the midsole. With leather soles, there is no mileage guarantee. Some folks are harder on shoes than others. I am hard on heels and have to stay on top of things with heel taps. An aftermarket super prime sole or a vibram toplift will give you a longer sole life, but the best advice for the future is to religiously wear toe taps.

You might contact one of the forum cobblers privately and get their advice. We can give you our opinions, but a pro can tell you what constitutes normal wear and what constitutes a defect. If Land's End doesn't pull through, I'm sure Nick V or Randy at Cobblestone would be happy to add a Rendenbach sole that would offer much better wear characteristics.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

michaelmc said:


> Okay, thanks for the reassurances, folks. The wear estimate above (2-3x week since early May) is totally above board. I occasionally walk the 4/5 of a mile to the trolley to or from work but usually take the bus. Beyond that, another block to the office from my stop, and then we have nice carpeted office floors. I'm not too heavy, either, about 185 lbs.


You drag the tips of your toes when you walk. I do too,though not as much as you judging by that wear. They need to be re-soled. After that get some toe taps.


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

michaelmc said:


> Okay, thanks for the reassurances, folks. The wear estimate above (2-3x week since early May) is totally above board. I occasionally walk the 4/5 of a mile to the trolley to or from work but usually take the bus. Beyond that, another block to the office from my stop, and then we have nice carpeted office floors. I'm not too heavy, either, about 185 lbs.


What does the sole look like on the other pair of shoes, looking at the photo of the one pair your walking style is putting a hurting on the sole of the shoe.
A toe tap will help with the toe, but your wear goes all the way back to the middle of sole, the conclusion being you are dragging your feet/shuffling when you are walking. The only thing that will help with this is set of hob nails on the soles. Your a bit past the fix that worked on me when I was a kid.


----------



## Angeland (Aug 24, 2011)

Thanks for the pictures. Looking at them, I would agree that you are putting a beating on your shoes with your stride. Everyone is going to wear down the toe to the point where their stride is accommodated, but it looks like you are completely dragging your toes when you walk. The next time you buy a good pair of shoes, you might have to work with the shoes a bit more. Or you may want to consider a fine shoe with a Danite sole. Allen Endmonds has many. Crockett and Jones does, too. Alden of Carmel actually orders a wide range of shoes with a commando sole (leather under mini-lug). 

On courses of action, if you bought this at Land's End, send it back to them and they will credit you no questions asked. Do this because times are tough and Land's End can better afford to eat the cost of these shoes than you can afford to be stressed out or buy another one--even if your stride may be responsible.

I did this with a pair of Red Wings I bought from Orvis. I might have made a mistake when walking with them but I felt that a gash I put on the toe resulted from a fault in the leather lining, which was causing the toe box to dent and weaken. They didn't blink an eye, and I got another pair. Land's End will do the same.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Angeland: Clearly you have chum in the water and are slowing dragging a line through the mess in the hope of hooking a big one. Your attempts to resurrect an acrimonious debate on the question of taking advantage of overly generous return acceptance policies of selected merchants is depressingly obvious. I hope the membership is wise enough not to take your bait!


----------



## CAG (Jun 27, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> I hope the membership is wise enough not to take your bait!


As a former retail employee, I'm fighting the urge right now.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> Angeland: Your attempts to resurrect an acrimonious debate on the question of taking advantage of overly generous return acceptance policies of selected merchants is depressingly obvious.


Even if Angeland's motivation isn't to ignite debate, it certainly epitomizes an ethical point others have made before.

I think even Karl Marx is starting to sympathize with the way some companies' return policies are being abused!


----------



## Angeland (Aug 24, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Angeland: Clearly you have chum in the water and are slowing dragging a line through the mess in the hope of hooking a big one. Your attempts to resurrect an acrimonious debate on the question of taking advantage of overly generous return acceptance policies of selected merchants is depressingly obvious. I hope the membership is wise enough not to take your bait!


Yikes. I didn't know there was any such debate on these boards. Is there a notice to new members to avoid this topic? I think debates in the vacuum of cyberspace easily escalate and are valueless, and I would never start one knowlingly.

I am of the opinion that if you bought something and broke it the merchant is not to blame for that. When I returned my Red Wings to Orvis I did so with a letter asking them to examine the toe box of one shoe, and I stated that if they felt that the product was up to standard then I would keep them, with a smile, and I had already paid full price for a replacement. They credited my account, with a smile, and that was that.

I was suggesting only that this buyer consider engaging Land' End in the same spirit.

I am happy to delete my post--or to have a moderator do so--if it helps this forum remain focused on our shared interest in fashions.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Angeland: Deleting your post is not necessary. It appears that we have not yet and will not be going off the rails with this conversation. Have a nice day!


----------



## jjskywlker (Dec 9, 2009)

I'm sorry, but the amount of wear that you quoted is roughly a year and a half of what I'd consider an optimal shoe rotation (5 shoes, 1 per work-day). That is far beyond what I would consider any expectation of a defect with a pair of shoes. Get some toe taps installed, try to get a few extra pairs to drop it to once or twice a week, lesson learned.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Three shoes in rotation should be sufficient.

Those shoes look like there coming apart a bit much though. I'm guessing a pair of more expensive shoes would hold up better (at the risk of being expelled for anti-AE behaviour . 

I always cap the soles, leather only wears fast on asphalt.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Tiger said:


> Even if Angeland's motivation isn't to ignite debate, it certainly epitomizes an ethical point others have made before.
> 
> I think even Karl Marx is starting to sympathize with the way some companies' return policies are being abused!


They do control their own policies though.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> They do control their own policies though.


LE's return policy is incredibly generous, as it will take anything back at any time for any reason (presumably to increase consumer confidence when buying from a company that did not have brick and mortar stores at its inception decades ago).

Just because one can do something, however, doesn't make it right to do it. Unfortunately, there are consumers who will take advantage of this policy, e.g., returning something years later, or that was damaged by the consumer, or no longer fits because of corpulence, etc. Perhaps it's emblematic of a society that seems to have lost the notion of personal responsibility, and seeks to have someone else subsidize their mistakes, folly, et al. Of course, I exclude those who have legitimate concerns re: fit, color, quality, defects, performance, etc.; I think most of us would agree that those are absolutely acceptable reasons for returning merchandise to any retailer, regardless of the retailer's policy.

Angeland initially wrote, "If you bought this at Land's End, send it back to them and they will credit you no questions asked. _Do this because times are tough and Land's End can better afford to eat the cost of these shoes than you can afford to be stressed out or buy another one--even if your stride may be responsible_."

So, even if the consumer is the cause of the problem, stick it to LE because they can better handle the financial loss, even though LE is not responsible for the problem. Readers can decide for themselves if this is ethical or not.

Apologies to Eagle if this resurrects an acrimonious debate...


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

So if the soles come apart, it's your fault for walking funny, but if you buy them with the wrong size/fit, the store should accept returns?

Generally, companies adhere to generous policies if it benefits them to always have a satisfied customer. Generally these are items with high markups. They feel that every return customer ads more than the loss of a single return (that might actually be the fault of the customer). 

If we add a (somewhat superfluous) layer of ethics that put private return policies right up there with overuse of social security systems we are really removing the right and possibility for companies to control their own policies and warranties. 

This may result in less returns, but if the company prefers to take the cost of a return over taking the cost of a dissatisfied customer, since a dissatisfied customer inevitably costs more in the long run (not only will he not buy again, but he will in fact buy from the competition) you're ensuring less long term profit for that company. 

The people behind the counter do not set the returns policies, for the reasons stated above, they are set by management. And management want to make a long term buck. 

This is the economic basis for the customer always being right (for items of quality with substantial markups) as well as the basis for the customer always being wrong in other areas of commerce where low quality low markup goods are sold.


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> So if the soles come apart, it's your fault for walking funny, but if you buy them with the wrong size/fit, the store should accept returns?


Bjorn take a close look at the shoes, 
Top picture, the whole 2nd layer of sole at the tip of the shoe is worn away (looks to be about an inch 2.54cm)
Bottom picture, sole is worn to the point that the stitching is worn through past the ball of the foot (from the front).
This isn't a materials/manufacturing issue this is an end user use issue.

As to buying the wrong size, stores spell out their fit return policies very well for the most part.
Typically 
Try them on at home and walk on carpet if they don't fit send them back.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

So, that is about 58 wearings and these shoes are shot. That is just not right. Whether the vendor can afford their return policy is not the customer's problem. Of course, the number of wearings per week in not helping. I also would want to know if there is a gait problem and I would probably start with the podiatrist. 

Oh, yeah - and the customer is always right.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

mrp said:


> Bjorn take a close look at the shoes,
> Top picture, the whole 2nd layer of sole at the tip of the shoe is worn away (looks to be about an inch 2.54cm)
> Bottom picture, sole is worn to the point that the stitching is worn through past the ball of the foot (from the front).
> This isn't a materials/manufacturing issue this is an end user use issue.
> ...


I agree. I would leave it up to AE to decide how to handle it though. Perhaps they value a satisfied educated customer to a very high degree (depends on the size of the markup on the shoes etc)


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> So if the soles come apart, it's your fault for walking funny, but if you buy them with the wrong size/fit, the store should accept returns?...If we add a (somewhat superfluous) layer of ethics...


Please don't distort my point. If a consumer buys a product that does not fit, they can simply return the product. Same is true if the product is defective. If the consumer is the cause of the product failure, I don't believe the retailer should be responsible to bear the cost. The retailer may choose to do so for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't alleviate consumers (and retailers, manufacturers, etc.) from making ethical choices. Not sure why that causes a dilemma for you.

If you belief that ethics are "superfluous," you and I will never achieve common ground. Some things are non-negotiable - in business, politics, personal relationships, academia, and any other realm you wish to choose.

Your other points have some merit, but the excuse that liberal return policies are purely offered because of astronomically mark-ups is deficient. Companies construct return policies for various reasons; if your argument is accurate, then the most egregious price-gougers would always have the most unquestionably liberal return policies. This is simply not the case!

Finally, as has been argued by many previously, sometimes it difficult to determine if a product failure is due to the fault of the product itself, or due to the consumer. Intelligent/reasonable people can have divergent opinions here. However, in the specific case discussed in this thread as amplified by Angeland, there wasn't a grey area. He advocated returning a product simply because the retailer could afford it, even if the consumer was at fault.

When did integrity become subordinated to the size of one's bank account?


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Tiger said:


> When did integrity become subordinated to the size of one's bank account?


Regrettably, history teaches this began even before the invention of banks.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Tiger said:


> Please don't distort my point. If a consumer buys a product that does not fit, they can simply return the product. Same is true if the product is defective. If the consumer is the cause of the product failure, I don't believe the retailer should be responsible to bear the cost. The retailer may choose to do so for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't alleviate consumers (and retailers, manufacturers, etc.) from making ethical choices. Not sure why that causes a dilemma for you.
> 
> If you belief that ethics are "superfluous," you and I will never achieve common ground. Some things are non-negotiable - in business, politics, personal relationships, academia, and any other realm you wish to choose.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't say that the generosity is a function of the size of the markup, rather that when a company earns more money from a return customer than it loses from accepting a return, they will choose to be generous for rational reasons.

From a rational standpoint, if you as a customer stand to win from returning a product you have misused, and the company stands to win from this procedure also in that it keeps you as a long term happy customer, then it is beneficial for both parties if you go ahead and make the return.

Reversely, if you impose ethics on the situation based on the notion that the return adversely affects the sellers business, and do not make the return, perhaps you're not doing anyone any favours.

Since the seller is free to construct his return policy, perhaps it is best to simply adhere to them as a buyer, letting the seller choose how he wants the policy to affect his economics.

If both parties act rationally, it's easier for the seller to tune his policy, and more buyers will be happy with their purchases. Perhaps it is of no importance why the customer is dissatisfied, but simply that he is dissatisfied is reason for a return.

If the economics work as I have stated above, the ethical point of view many are proposing (and that I do sympathise with) may be detrimental to the best interest of both buyer and seller.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Jeeze Louise fellas from my eye it looks fairly straight forward.

*mrp:
"Bjorn take a close look at the shoes, 
Top picture, the whole 2nd layer of sole at the tip of the shoe is worn away (looks to be about an inch 2.54cm)
Bottom picture, sole is worn to the point that the stitching is worn through past the ball of the foot (from the front).
This isn't a materials/manufacturing issue this is an end user use issue."*

I've looked at the pictures, he seems to have worn the leather soles so thin at the toe of the shoes that it's worn through the stitching,..... And then it's suggested that there's a defect in the sole or manufacturing process?

Is there any responsibility to the owner of the shoes for any level of upkeep? Was the owner so oblivious so that he didn't notice that he was wearing the toes of the soles out?

Why didn't he have some small metal taps installed?

Perhaps he does walk in a unique way but the way I see it all that could have been overcome if he would have payed a small amount of attention to what he was doing to his shoes.

Someone here at AAAC should purchase a decent pair of Aldens or Allen Edmonds and wear them as close to everyday as possible and see how quickly they can completely thrash the shoes.

Years ago I used to work with a guy who would buy his shoes at Nordstrom's and proceed to wear them to death only to return them to Nordstrom and they would ask no questions and give him a brand new pair. (I watched him get three new pairs of Cole-Haan kiltie loafers like this,.....)

Has anyone ever wondered why Nordstrom's no longer takes returns with no questions asked?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> From a rational standpoint, if you as a customer stand to win from returning a product you have misused, and the company stands to win from this procedure also in that it keeps you as a long term happy customer, then it is beneficial for both parties if you go ahead and make the return...If the economics work as I have stated above, the ethical point of view many are proposing (and that I do sympathise with) may be detrimental to the best interest of both buyer and seller.


You missed my point - I believe ethical behavior should always be chosen, regardless of who happens to "win."

In addition, isn't it self-evident that ethical people who misuse a product and thus don't return it to the retailer are just as willing to repurchase from the retailer, since they ipso facto are aware that the product and retailer are not the source of the problem?

The notion that retailers count on repeat business from people who consistently abuse them is rife with suspect economics and common-sense defying logic.


----------



## jkiley (Jul 2, 2011)

Retailers have a good sense of customer value on average and often at an individual level. Many times, they're willing to eat a return because they know that they'll make it back (and more) in future business. Also, a good return policy helps induce folks to buy because the risk is lower for the buyer. As such, an occasional ambiguous return is a cost that comes with additional sales.

I don't think the OP sounds like a guy who is taking advantage of a seller at the relationship level. He may very well get an ambiguous return in his favor, but it will work out for the seller either at a customer value level or in the aggregate. Retailers do deal with people who abuse return policies, usually by refusing to sell to them or telling them ahead of time that future returns will be closely scrutinized.

As far as the ethics of the practice are concerned, I think we can let the big retailers take care of themselves. They'll make the decision that is best for them overall. From a personal standpoint, I think we should aim to be reasonable and fair. If they give you the benefit of the doubt, recognize it and appreciate it with future business.


----------



## jkiley (Jul 2, 2011)

A few replies landed while I was drafting mine, so I apologize for any duplication in logic with the three or so posts just ahead of mine.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

I do own a pair of custom grade church's that I (out of ignorance) wore most everyday for 9 months when starting out about 6 years back. They recuperated very well and are actually still going strong. 

As for common sense versus economics, I'd rather trust in the economics and adjust to the policies than impose moral guidelines on myself that reverse the function of really generous return policies. 

There's plenty of reasons not to abuse your shoes anyway, mainly that your robbing yourself of the pure pleasure of a pair of beautifully ageing shoes and the skills that develop with proper maintenance routines. 

If you screw up, (normally starting out) and the seller takes the shoes back, and gives you a new pair, you're never switching supplier.

I very much like church's, for the reason that I could rely on their quality to take a beating. Perhaps if the OP gets a new pair from AE, with instructions and admonitions, he may become one of their best long term customers. Maybe the cost for AE for one pair of shoes are way less than the asking price, perhaps they in fact charge extra to able to ensure happy customers. 

If the moral decay of society is the culprit here, making people abuse policies, threatening companies with financial downfall, they can adjust their policies. I don't think they will, because they know they'll earn more money this way. 

We have companies acting on free markets, we shouldn't sell that system short.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Sorry, Bjorn, but I found your response impenetrable...

I am very much in favor of free markets. Why you think otherwise is perplexing. In addition, many factors are at play in business, including ethics. Because one does not wish to exclude ethical considerations from business transactions does not mean he rejects laissez-faire concepts. Quite the contrary...


----------



## J.Marko (Apr 14, 2009)

Call Lands' End and explain the problem. They will likely be very concerned that you are not happy with the shoes you bought and beg you to return them. Don't abuse their return policy, but returning shoes that wear out too quickly is not, in my opinion, abuse of their policy - especially when they will encourage you to bring it back. This is one of the reasons I spend so much money at Lands' End - I know they will stand by their 100% satisfaction guarantee. If anything, they have told me they wish more people would return things if they weren't completely satisfied!

Lands' End knows what they are doing. Nordstrom has a similar policy on their shoes, and they also get more business from it.


----------



## dparm (Nov 18, 2008)

Lands' End is very customer service-oriented and should be able to help you. If it is truly a defect, LE will basically send them back to AE and get reimbursed.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Bjorn said:


> I do own a pair of custom grade church's that I (out of ignorance) wore most everyday for 9 months when starting out about 6 years back. They recuperated very well and are actually still going strong.
> 
> As for common sense versus economics, I'd rather trust in the economics and adjust to the policies than impose moral guidelines on myself that reverse the function of really generous return policies.
> 
> ...


Very well written Bjorn. The differences between you and the OP? You admit that you played a role in the situation by wearing your Churche's steady for about nine months.


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

127.72 MHz said:


> Jeeze Louise fellas from my eye it looks fairly straight forward.
> 
> I've looked at the pictures, he seems to have worn the leather soles so thin at the toe of the shoes that it's worn through the stitching,..... And then it's suggested that there's a defect in the sole or manufacturing process?


Thankfully I'm not the only one looking at the actual items in question. 
I'd still be interested in seeing some pics of the soles of other shoes by the OP.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ Good point. The entire question is subjective but I'm a bit surprised that so few people can agree on where a poorly made or defective product ends and consumer abuse begins.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

For the sake of clarity, I never offered an opinion as to where the fault should be placed (I even admitted the difficulty in doing so, in many cases if not this particular one). 

My issue was with one forum member who believed that the retailer should swallow the cost of the product even if the consumer was unequivocally at fault, simply because the retailer can supposedly handle the loss better.

I argued for an ethical approach, but few here seemed to find it compelling. Instead, I was met with distorted arguments of the free market, as if I wasn't the devotee of Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, and Henry Hazlitt that I've been since my teenage years!


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Tiger said:


> For the sake of clarity, I never offered an opinion as to where the fault should be placed (I even admitted the difficulty in doing so, in many cases if not this particular one).
> 
> My issue was with one forum member who believed that the retailer should swallow the cost of the product even if the consumer was unequivocally at fault, simply because the retailer can supposedly handle the loss better.
> 
> I argued for an ethical approach, but few here seemed to find it compelling. Instead, I was met with distorted arguments of the free market, as if I wasn't the devotee of Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, and Henry Hazlitt that I've been since my teenage years!


Add me to those who agree that ethics count.


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

arkirshner said:


> Add me to those who agree that ethics count.


And myself.

Back on topic, it is clearly apparent from the photographs that those shoes have been worn out prematurely due to the wearer dragging his feet when walking. Note too the signs of scuffing on the toes, and the lack of any indication of them ever having been polished.

OP, you will attain better wear from your shoes if you rotate them, as suggested (leaving them on trees when not in use) and adjust your gait so as not to drag your feet. Toe taps will help a little, but they won't be able to overcome that scuffing of the entire sole.
Also, pay some time and attention to cleaning and polishing! Doing so will not only keep them looking better, but it will help the leather last longer.


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

Tiger said:


> I argued for an ethical approach, but few here seemed to find it compelling. Instead, I was met with distorted arguments of the free market, as if I wasn't the devotee of Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, and Henry Hazlitt that I've been since my teenage years!


I'm in total agreement with the ethical argument.
There are those that game the system to their advantage, in the end the rest of us pay for their ride.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ A succinct and salient commentary mrp. Bravo. 

Tiger, arkirshner, and Checkerboard, you have revived my faith in good sense amongst an anonymous group.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

127.72 MHz said:


> ^^ A succinct and salient commentary mrp. Bravo.
> 
> Tiger, arkirshner, and Checkerboard, you have revived my faith in good sense amongst an anonymous group.


All of your posts are helping to revive my faith in humanity.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

An anonymous group, yes, but one that is very admirable...


----------



## Angeland (Aug 24, 2011)

As the poster who inadvertently revived this controversy (which is ironic because I have asked for exchange or refund consideration on exactly two things in my catalog buying life--and I will even keep and give away products to Good Will if the color is off), I would like to pose something that may be relevant.

The retailer is assuming a risk by selling a product that requires some experience to use correctly and not supplying information on how to do so while also offering an open-ended return policy.

We all know that most young men are unfamiliar with what to expect from fine footwear, to include how to walk in it and take care of it as well as the entire break-in process. But all of us who love fine footwear REALLY want young men to start buying them, which will keep the market healthy now and in the future. The market for fine footwear has to accommodate the limitations of the new buyer.

If Land's End or anyone else is selling fine shoes, they might consider putting a "BEFORE YOUR WEAR" flyer in the shoe box listing some basics about how leather soles wear and how to avoid common problems, what to expect in terms of the break-in process (heel slippage, for example, causes many to believe the shoe doesn't fit even though this is just part of the leather sole taking shape), and when to take corrective action (and, then, what kind).

Had he bought these at an Allen Edmonds store, the salesperson would have gauged his experience and tactfully provided guidance. If Land's End didn't do that but did make it clear to him that he could return the product for any reason, then that does seem to me a problem that the retailer will have to deal with (not should, will--I am not making an ethical judgment but assessing an operational risk).

I apologize again if my post caused problems. That was not my intention, and the tone of the paragraph in question failed to come through in print. That is my fault. What I meant was that if he chooses to go this route he should do so with his ethical eyes wide open to the nature of the choice he is making.


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

Angeland said:


> The retailer is assuming a risk by selling a product that requires some experience to use correctly and not supplying information on how to do so while also offering an open-ended return policy.
> 
> We all know that most young men are unfamiliar with what to expect from fine footwear, to include how to walk in it and take care of it as well as the entire break-in process.


Thankfully I had parents, that:
A. Made sure that I didn't drag my feet on the ground, no matter how much fun it may have seemed like at the time, so I never developed a habit
B. Showed me how to polish and take care of my shoes

In my case my young men (sons 19-22) both know how to not drag their feet, and know how to polish their shoes.

I suppose to make the end user responsible there will have to be a EULA attached to each shoe that will have to be removed prior to putting them on.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

If the manufacturers go under from replacing clothes under their own policies, I'll say I'm sorry. Promise. 

Hopefully the service they extend voluntarily can be used without being abused. 

I can't remember the last time I actually returned anything under warranty, but I can't help but feel that that doesn't really make me a better person. It feels like your confusing the merits of self sufficiency and skill with these warranty issues. 

Sure, it's better in a sense to be skillful in using your clothes, and being self sufficient rather than relying on others. But use of a policy that you in fact paid for your part in, as the cost is distributed equally between customers, cannot firstly equal an ethical dilemma. It has to firstly be a matter between the seller and the buyer, and the contract they've made. 

If that is not the case, sellers with no warranty, where the customer pays less for the product and gets only repairs, redeliveries or refunds that he pays for (although not full price / deducted refunds) are much better. In fact, such sellers don't get much business. CP laws prohibit that in most places. 

I do actually remember returning an Onkyo amplifier under warranty, as it had overheated and died. I think the main reason it died was I only had a 5 cm free space above it in my shelves, and a closed back on the shelves. I hadn't realised the amount of heat it produced in comparison with my old one. I returned the amplifier without any hassle, and was careful to remove the back of the shelves to get better airflow. 

When my dad and cousin was looking to buy new amplifiers I suggested Onkyos. When I lost my old one I bought a new. All in all, I think Onkyo made a fair buck on me. Especially since their cost of redelivery does not equal the consumer price. 

From your ethical standpoint, perhaps I shouldn't have returned but had it repaired on my cost. This would have cost roughly 20% of the original price, and I would never have recommended Onkyo. You don't recommend things you aren't happy with. 

From the pictures of the shoes, I can't make a judgement on whether they should have held up better or not. I could see shoes under the same use not coming apart, and not showing so much wear. There's such a thing as different quality materials and build. 

At their price point, most likely AE does not use the absolute best quality materials or build. Fact... 

They may have excellent quality at their price, but noone can say that their quality is equal to Church's, Lobb, Vass or Edward Green. 

Perhaps a pair of Loakes or Barker would have come apart even more. I had a pair in law school that got rained on once and the leather got really ugly. They also split apart in the sole much easier. It's rained on my Church's from time to time and they don't show it. 

A pair of Goodyear welted shoes should be quite durable.


----------



## Angeland (Aug 24, 2011)

MRP,
That is funny--the EULA agreement. But a reason why among American made shoes we have only Alden and Allen Edmonds to choose from is that most young men are NOT like your sons. 

If we all hope men will start wearing decent shoes again, then we have to help new buyers--as all of us do by participating in this forum.

If the OP or someone like him said, "That's the last time I spend so much on shoes!" after his experience with a venerable shoe like the AE Leeds, then we all lose and that is a situation that can be avoided.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Angeland said:


> If Land's End or anyone else is selling fine shoes, they might consider putting a "BEFORE YOUR WEAR" flyer in the shoe box listing some basics about how leather soles wear and how to avoid common problems, what to expect in terms of the break-in process (heel slippage, for example, causes many to believe the shoe doesn't fit even though this is just part of the leather sole taking shape), and when to take corrective action (and, then, what kind).


I think this case is clearly operator error and I wouldn't have considered taking them back had I been in the OPs position. However, this is good advice. LL Bean does this with the fit of their Bean Boots. If you know how a shoe is supposed to fit it's clear if the Bean Boots fit or not. However, they provide the consumer who doesn't know every opportunity to figure it out prior to wearing the boots. They even put a card in the box - probably for exactly this reason.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> At their price point, most likely AE does not use the absolute best quality materials or build. Fact...
> 
> They may have excellent quality at their price, but noone can say that their quality is equal to Church's, Lobb, Vass or Edward Green.


If you buy a pair of Shell AE's they are going to have the exact same sole and leather upper as a Vass. They might have a higher quality sole than the EGs - I'm not sure if EG uses JR soles.

None of those shoes are going to stand up to foot dragging 3 days a week for 6 months.


----------

