# Loake (shoe) fans of the world unite



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

Hello Andyforumites. I've looked at these posts with interest and I have finally taken the plunge and joined.

Loake takes a bit of stick in some posts here, but my experience of them has always been extremely positive. They were my first departure from decades of cheap n'nasty (or even expensive n'nasty) high street shoes and I am now a devotee. Apart from a couple of pairs of Loakes-by-Herring and obvious things like trainers, and beach-bum sandals, all my shoes are Loake. You get what you pay for, in the very best sense of that phrase, with Loakes. The made-in-in-India "L1" pairs at just over £100RRP are FAR better than most shoe-store shoes and will do what is says on the packet (although the Lifestyle Range Woodstock is a cut above the average and most definitely not a bog-standard shoe). At the other end, the 100%-made-in-Kettering 1880 range at about twice that price are outstanding (IMHO) ... and there are further made-in-England ranges in between. The 1880's leather is noticeably top-end calf and the styles are many and varied. I have had a couple of teething roubles with Loakes and the company's response has been a free re-sole of a pair (for a single shoe that was squeaking!) and a new set of inner counters to stop another pair of shoes rubbing my heel. All done quickly, with great courtesy and free postage back to me.

I'll be interested to see what else pops up on this thread ... positive and negative! For die-hard shoe fans ... there's a delightfully homespun little film on 



 that lets some of their shoemakers speak for themselves! They're also on https://www.loake.co.uk/ and Facebook https://www.facebook.com/Loake?fref=ts.

By the way - I have no connection with Loake other than through my feet - I just like good products and enjoy letting other people know about them!

Alan


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

I like Loake - at least the better Loakes. I particularly like the toe shape of their brogues, it's more refined than some of the rather bulbous-ended brogues out there. And they fit my shape of foot well, which always helps.


----------



## Mr Humphries (Apr 5, 2013)

afm said:


> I have a pair of these , lovely shoes and a fortuitous first purchase outside of my usual DMs/Vans etc. They pair wonderfully with my tweed suit and jacket which I bought up in your fair city A. It was a toss up between these and a pair of Church's i also spotted in Auld Reekie but Loakes won.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

When I first started taking an interest in matters sartorial, and frequenting this and other similar fora, about 2 years ago, it seemed that Loake did get a bad rap, and I thought them something to avoid, but lately, I've noticed a change and there seem to be quite a few posts here praising Loake quality.

I have a few pairs of Herring by Loake and have owned a pair of Loake Woodstock. Sold those ones as they run large and I had bought a half size too big for me anyway, but I'm hoping to get another pair this year.
My next shoe purchase however could well be Burgundy Loake Strands.

Styleforum has it's very long running Allen Edmonds Appreciation Thread, so why can't AAAC have one all about Loakes?


----------



## Deoraby (Feb 6, 2012)

i think loakes are pretty decent shoes and very good value for the money. Usually buy Grensons bought i bought a pair of shoemakers similar to the ones on the image in the original post and am really impressed with them. Have a pair of L1 desert boots too....one thing i find strange with them is sizing...i'm usually a UK11 but had to size up for the Shoemakers (12) and down for the L1s (10.5)....im not used to seeing so much variability from the same makers??

now on the topic of bad shoes, i picked up a couple of pairs of Gucci boots from DSW in NewYork awhile ago at a bargain price...one of the pairs lasted two months (sole completely worn through), the other pair about ten wears (sole pulled off the nails that were anchoring it to the shoe). These are boots, not drivers and i would have expected a longer life for shoes that cost over $500 retail? how much of that 500 is to pay Gucci's advertising bill?


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

Nice to hear that you've visited God's own city! Did you visit Barnet's on the Royal Mile? Best shoe shop in Auld Reekie.


----------



## Mr Humphries (Apr 5, 2013)

The better half and I love Edinburgh, but Barnets must have flown under the radar somewhat. I had a gander in the shop on George Street round the corner from Ede & Ravenscroft, nice shoes, nicer prices ....ouch!

Next pair of Loakes will be darker, a burgundy or dark red if they make them.


----------



## mommatook1 (Apr 17, 2008)

+1, they've got some great styles at reasonable prices.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I have a pair in light tan, very similar to those illustrated. They're my absolute favourite shoes.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Despite the sometime characterisation of Loakes as 'entry-level' superior shoes I can say that I have been wearing Loakes amongst my rotation for more years than I care to remember and have always been deeply satisfied with their quality, fit, style and longevity.


----------



## Spex (Nov 25, 2012)

I like the look of many Loake models and would like to get a pair of brogue boots or black derbys, but here in Toronto I've only found one store that caries them and they charge almost twice the price of AEs! Perhaps an online order is the solution...


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

Mr Humphries said:


> The better half and I love Edinburgh, but Barnets must have flown under the radar somewhat. I had a gander in the shop on George Street round the corner from Ede & Ravenscroft, nice shoes, nicer prices ....ouch! Next pair of Loakes will be darker, a burgundy or dark red if they make them.


Ooh - do visit Barnet's next time you're there https://www.barnetsshoes.co.uk/. They're not as posh as the shops down George Street way, but they are a proper-job shoe shop with a good selection of Loakes.


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

I've also seen the 'entry-level' superior shoes tag and thought it unfair. I love my Loakes.


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

I'd be interested to hear how you get on with online from the UK - it's not difficult to get online Loakes over here and occasionally a bargain. I've had excelklent service from Herring (https://www.herringshoes.co.uk/index.php) who sell Loakes, other posh shoes and their "own brand", which are made by Loake etc and are VERY good value.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

afm said:


> I've also seen the 'entry-level' superior shoes tag and thought it unfair. I love my Loakes.


Well, Loakes _are_ entry-level - in the way that, e.g., _Das Rheingold_ is entry-level Wagner, and _The Charging Chasseur_ is entry-level Gericault.


----------



## Mr Humphries (Apr 5, 2013)

Entry level as accessible, reasonably priced etc and not exorbitant and exclusive. But then some folk dont deem shoes worthy unless elves made them overnight and left them by the hearth.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

afm said:


> I'd be interested to hear how you get on with online from the UK - it's not difficult to get online Loakes over here and occasionally a bargain. I've had excelklent service from Herring (https://www.herringshoes.co.uk/index.php) who sell Loakes, other posh shoes and their "own brand", which are made by Loake etc and are VERY good value.


They are freely available online from several sources, and usually the choice is better than you would find in a real shoe shop. Nevertheless, buying shoes online is usually a big gamble in terms of whether they will fit well - unless you stick with tried and tested combinations of maker/last/size, but even then, shoes seem to vary.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Mr Humphries said:


> Entry level as accessible, reasonably priced etc and not exorbitant and exclusive. But then some folk dont deem shoes worthy unless elves made them overnight and left them by the hearth.


Yes indeed. 
I saw Loakes described on this forum once as "a gateway drug", but then someone else noted that when wearing Loakes you have better shoes on than at least 90% of the people you pass in the street.
I'd say that figure could be higher.


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

*Some folk don't deem shoes worthy unless elves made them overnight*



Mr Humphries said:


> Entry level as accessible, reasonably priced etc and not exorbitant and exclusive. But then some folk dont deem shoes worthy unless elves made them overnight and left them by the hearth.


Well done, Mr Humphries - I've been struggling for a way to express that extreme form of arch shoe-snobbery and you have nailed it with one concise bang! I take my hat (leather, but not made by Loake, by the way) off to you. Loake offer their own entry-level (L1 range), mid-price and then THEIR top-end 1880 range. They are very clear about which shoes are made by Indian elves and which by Kettering elves. I have examples of both and the entry level shoes do what they say on the packet (with the exception of the Woodstocks , which definitely punch above their weight). Oh dear, I am drowning in mixed metaphors .. all in an attempt to compete with Mr Humphries' succinct put-down of the foolishness of extremist snobs (in any context).


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

More expensive British makers are better than Loake. That's simply a fact. But they are more expensive. 

Anyone done full resoles on any Loakes?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> More expensive British makers are better than Loake. That's simply a fact. But they are more expensive.
> 
> Anyone done full resoles on any Loakes?


I have had this done - and very satisfactorily. :icon_smile: In fact, I'm wearing a pair right now.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Anyone done full resoles on any Loakes?


A nice film from Kettering - it mentions resoling.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Spex said:


> I like the look of many Loake models and would like to get a pair of brogue boots or black derbys, but here in Toronto I've only found one store that caries them and they charge almost twice the price of AEs! Perhaps an online order is the solution...


Definitely order online. That would be overpaying by a huge margin.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

afm said:


> I've also seen the 'entry-level' superior shoes tag and thought it unfair. I love my Loakes.


I'm not sure I understand why this is an unfair description of the brand. Within the realm of superior quality shoes they (like Allen Edmonds) sit at the lower end of the scale. That isn't to say that they are of poor quality in absolute terms - far from it - they are generally viewed as properly deserving of inclusion in any discussion of better shoe brands. But there are certainly better shoes out there than Loakes, which also command a higher price. Having an understanding of the spectrum of quality shoe brands from manufacturers across the globe, including their comparative strengths and weaknesses, does not make one a snob.

And yes, I own a pair of Loakes and like them very well indeed.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> More expensive British makers are better than Loake. That's simply a fact.


Better as in better, or better as in nicer? At this time I have shoes from Loake, Barker, Cheaney and Sanders, with the Loakes being the cheapest. While my Cheaneys and Sanders are _nicer_ in terms of surface finish, I can't honestly say that any of my other shoes are _better_ than my Loakes. They fit me no better (though fit is, of course, a pointless parameter), they have held up to wear no better and I can't really see any indications that they are better made. They may well _be_ better, but I won't know until I see which pair is the first to fall apart. In any case, based on the available empirical evidence I'd say they're all of comparable quality.

The picture may well change when I get around to picking up shoes from Alfred Sargent, Crockett & Jones and Trickers, but I have a hunch I'll simply find them to be more refined rather than better.


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

*Re-sole on a Loake*



Bjorn said:


> More expensive British makers are better than Loake. That's simply a fact. But they are more expensive.
> 
> Anyone done full resoles on any Loakes?


Not quite - but I have had a pair of Herring "Bath" semi-brogues resoled by Loake (who, of course, made them - they are equivalent to the Loake 1880 range). The shoes were squeaking and Loake re-soled them for free!!. They now look like new shoes but feel like old friends.:biggrin:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

In England, at least, you definately get what you pay for when it comes to goodyear welted calf-skin shoes. You can judge the quality and craftmanship by the price - if it's more then they are better. 

Wether or not you are prepared to pay twice the price for something than is not twice as 'better' is, of course, a decision for the individual.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

That is certainly the received wisdom; I'm just not entirely convinced that it is true. I _am_ prepared to believe that a higher price brings with it a better finish, such as leather which is increasingly nicely burnished, but in my head that has little or nothing to do with actual, physical quality. Do I think Crockett & Jones Belgrave look better than Loake Strand? Absolutely. Are the Belgraves better shoes? I've no idea. To answer that I'd have to walk a pair of each into the ground to see which shoes give in first.


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

*Entry level - insult or compliment?*



RogerP said:


> I'm not sure I understand why this is an unfair description of the brand. Within the realm of superior quality shoes they (like Allen Edmonds) sit at the lower end of the scale. That isn't to say that they are of poor quality in absolute terms - far from it - they are generally viewed as properly deserving of inclusion in any discussion of better shoe brands. But there are certainly better shoes out there than Loakes, which also command a higher price. Having an understanding of the spectrum of quality shoe brands from manufacturers across the globe, including their comparative strengths and weaknesses, does not make one a snob.
> 
> And yes, I own a pair of Loakes and like them very well indeed.


OK - I stand corrected (partly) as I am a fan of the careful use of language. Loake are, indeed, at the lower price end of "good" shoes and they have their own internal price range structure. To that extent, "entry-level" is an OK description, as it's normal to enter a new interest at the lower-price end to limit financial damage(!). I'm reacting to the rather pejorative inference carried by "entry level", as it's normally equated with "not good enough". It also implies that after entry, one must go somewhere better and more expensive/exclusive!
My attitude, having moved on from a lifetime of bog-standard, decent-but-mass-produced shoes, is that I now enjoy wearing a number of pairs of varied Loakes which will, with care, last me for quite some time. Had I paid the extra and gone for (say) Trickers/Church I'd have slightly more exclusive shoes, possibly better shoes by some criteria, but fewer of them. So - Loake is, for me, entry point and end point.
I do apologise for my broad-brush "snob" label - one is only a snob if the sole (sic) reason for a preference is exclusivity, as opposed to a choice made on the basis of knowledge and genuine preference.
Nothing better than a good debate about words!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Belfaborac said:


> That is certainly the received wisdom; I'm just not entirely convinced that it is true. I _am_ prepared to believe that a higher price brings with it a better finish, such as leather which is increasingly nicely burnished, but in my head that has little or nothing to do with actual, physical quality. Do I think Crockett & Jones Belgrave look better than Loake Strand? Absolutely. Are the Belgraves better shoes? I've no idea. To answer that I'd have to walk a pair of each into the ground to see which shoes give in first.


I've had both Church's and Loakes for a number of years, my oldest church's going on 10 years. The Church's have held up better in sole and uppers.

Since there is a heavy difference in the manufacturing process, as I understand it the more expensive shoes are worked on a lot more by hand, there should be a difference in durability/quality as well. The number of manufacturing steps that a pair of church's or C&J go through is a lot higher. The quality of materials used is better, for example in the soles.

There are quality differences within those brands as well, with the hand grades being more expensive, and even between those two very similar offerings from the same brands, the hand grades appear just a little bit neater, more refined.

Your instincts on the Belgrave may be telling you (correctly) that they are better made. Just by looking at them.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Belfaborac said:


> Better as in better, or better as in nicer? At this time I have shoes from Loake, Barker, Cheaney and Sanders, with the Loakes being the cheapest. While my Cheaneys and Sanders are _nicer_ in terms of surface finish, I can't honestly say that any of my other shoes are _better_ than my Loakes. They fit me no better (though fit is, of course, a pointless parameter), they have held up to wear no better and I can't really see any indications that they are better made. They may well _be_ better, but I won't know until I see which pair is the first to fall apart. In any case, based on the available empirical evidence I'd say they're all of comparable quality.
> 
> The picture may well change when I get around to picking up shoes from Alfred Sargent, Crockett & Jones and Trickers, but I have a hunch I'll simply find them to be more refined rather than better.


I would say Loake, Barker and Sanders are of similar quality, and Cheaney somewhat better. Crockett & Jones and Trickers use superior calfskin - generally softer and suppler. I have a few Alfred Sargent shoes but they are all quite old - brogues and veldtschoen mostly, of impeccably robust construction but not exactly svelte. I'm not sure you will find any significant differences in how well made the shoes are from any of these firms - they all use the same methods, with similar machinery. Better quality leather for both uppers and soles, however, will tend to make the more expensive shoes both more comfortable and longer-lasting.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

afm said:


> OK - I stand corrected (partly) as I am a fan of the careful use of language. Loake are, indeed, at the lower price end of "good" shoes and they have their own internal price range structure. To that extent, "entry-level" is an OK description, as it's normal to enter a new interest at the lower-price end to limit financial damage(!). I'm reacting to the rather pejorative inference carried by "entry level", as it's normally equated with "not good enough". It also implies that after entry, one must go somewhere better and more expensive/exclusive!
> My attitude, having moved on from a lifetime of bog-standard, decent-but-mass-produced shoes, is that I now enjoy wearing a number of pairs of varied Loakes which will, with care, last me for quite some time. Had I paid the extra and gone for (say) Trickers/Church I'd have slightly more exclusive shoes, possibly better shoes by some criteria, but fewer of them. So - Loake is, for me, entry point and end point.
> I do apologise for my broad-brush "snob" label - one is only a snob if the sole (sic) reason for a preference is exclusivity, as opposed to a choice made on the basis of knowledge and genuine preference.
> Nothing better than a good debate about words!


Now you are just kidding yourself 

Once money comes by, those Edward Greens are gonna start looking better and better, cheaper and cheaper...


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

I'm hoping the dedicated Loake fans will post some more images of their shoes - I'd love to see them.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> I've had both Church's and Loakes for a number of years, my oldest church's going on 10 years. The Church's have held up better in sole and uppers.
> 
> Since there is a heavy difference in the manufacturing process, as I understand it the more expensive shoes are worked on a lot more by hand, there should be a difference in durability/quality as well. The number of manufacturing steps that a pair of church's or C&J go through is a lot higher. The quality of materials used is better, for example in the soles.
> ...


I think you may have been taken in by their clever marketing. I have visited most of the shoe factories here over the years, and they all run along very similar lines. If you want hand-sewn you would have to go to someone like George Cleverly.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

RogerP said:


> I'm hoping the dedicated Loake fans will post some more images of their shoes - I'd love to see them.


Just for you Roger! :icon_smile:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...hine-without-wax-polish&p=1369102#post1369102


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

^^^ Thank you sir - and very nice indeed!


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

Bjorn, he say "Once money comes by, those Edward Greens are gonna start looking better and better, cheaper and cheaper..."

Har de har!


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> I've had both Church's and Loakes for a number of years, my oldest church's going on 10 years. The Church's have held up better in sole and uppers.


That's certainly an empirical indication that pricier = better, though of course not statistically significant. I'm looking forward to collecting my empirical data as time goes by, once I've completed my shoe buying.



> Since there is a heavy difference in the manufacturing process, as I understand it the more expensive shoes are worked on a lot more by hand, there should be a difference in durability/quality as well. The number of manufacturing steps that a pair of church's or C&J go through is a lot higher.


My impression is that the better finishing of the more expensive shoe accounts for the majority of the extra hand work. I also don't really see why hand made trumps machine made where quality or durability is concerned, just as I don't see the importance of the number of manufacturing steps.



> Your instincts on the Belgrave may be telling you (correctly) that they are better made. Just by looking at them.


They may well be telling me that. I'll get around to picking up a pair soon, which I suppose is the only way to find out for sure. In the meantime I reserve the right to be a sceptic, seeing as there is a very serious dearth of hard facts to be found, as opposed to the wealth of subjective assumptions and inherited dogma which is freely available.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

I'm not sure what "hard facts" might convince you that any shoes are better quality than Loakes, but I was wearing my Loake monks while checking out a pair of St. Crispins, and I sure wouldn't need to wear both to the point of disintegration to know that the latter was a better quality shoe.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Langham said:


> I'm not sure you will find any significant differences in how well made the shoes are from any of these firms - they all use the same methods, with similar machinery. Better quality leather for both uppers and soles, however, will tend to make the more expensive shoes both more comfortable and longer-lasting.


That's pretty much what I assume myself. I agree, of course, that all else being equal better raw materials _should_ result in a better shoe, but as you say the method of construction is pretty much the same across the line and hence they all ought to be equally well made.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

RogerP said:


> I'm not sure what "hard facts" might convince you that any shoes are better quality than Loakes, but I was wearing my Loake monks while checking out a pair of St. Crispins, and I sure wouldn't need to wear both to the point of disintegration to know that the latter was a better quality shoe.


How did you "know" then? Could you feel the obvious superiority of the leather used, or somehow discern that their construction was superior? Or did they just look more expensive/exclusive?


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Indeed. How does anyone know anything, really. Let me ask you this - do you believe all welted shoes to be of equal quality simply because of that method of construction?


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Yes, yes, feel free to label me a relativist because you can't furnish me with an answer. It certainly is the easiest way to go.

The simple fact is that up through the years I have acquired a good number of expensive things on the strength of the "logic" that their attractiveness and elevated price must indicate elevated quality - only to find that particular "logic" faulty. It took a while, but finally I learned my lesson and stopped believing that price is a _reliable_ indicator of anything much at all.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Belfaborac said:


> Yes, yes, feel free to label me a relativist because you can't furnish me with an answer. It certainly is the easiest way to go.
> 
> The simple fact is that up through the years I have acquired a good number of expensive things on the strength of the "logic" that their attractiveness and elevated price must indicate elevated quality - only to find that particular "logic" faulty. It took a while, but finally I learned my lesson and stopped believing that price is a _reliable_ indicator of anything much at all.


I haven't labeled you anything at all. I will happily leave you to the continued bliss of that which you describe as skepticism. I will simply observe before parting this exchange that I have nowhere claimed that price alone is an infallible indicator of superior quality.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

RogerP said:


> I will happily leave you to the continued bliss of that which you describe as skepticism.


Scepticism is obviously the least blissful of all states of being, in that one requires proof and hard facts, rather than being happy enough with hearsay, dogma, TV ads, loose suppositions or colourful leaflets. And hard facts and proof are rarely readily available.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

My Loake 1880s - pic and purchase from Herring:


----------



## Claus (Apr 8, 2010)

Belfaborac said:


> In the meantime I reserve the right to be a sceptic, seeing as there is a very serious dearth of hard facts to be found, as opposed to the wealth of subjective assumptions and inherited dogma which is freely available.


As a fellow skeptic, I've settled the question for me the following way:

Get rid of the price differences by simply assuming a fixed budget. Say, for example, one needs four pairs of shoes at least (two for the winter, two for the summer).

This requires a budget of £1860 given the prices for Crockett & Jones. For about the same money, one gets 9 pairs of Loake.

Assuming each pair of C&J can stand 400 wearings, all four pairs would be dead in about 4.5 years, due to the wear. In the same time, each Loake would need to stand a mere 180 wearings only to get even (which equals of being worn each day for half a year - even glued shoes can do this).

Overall, in terms of mere durability, there's simple no logical or physical reason to assume that - in this example - Crockett & Jones is that much better than Loake.

However, the same conclusion holds true when you compare Loake to some glued shoe. Assuming £50 a pair, the budget then allows 37 pairs of glued shoes. They certainly would make it to the end of 4.5 years (about 45 wearings for each).

It's a matter of being honest with one-self, I think. I stopped trying to justify the price by pointing to durability.

It's okay to simply like certain things, in my opinion.


----------



## cincydavid (May 21, 2012)

To steer this thread back to the shoes, my ONLY Loake shoes are Indian-made model 256 brown suede loafers. They fit and feel OK, but someone called them "hushpuppies" and I haven't worn them since. I thought they were spiffy, but now I'm starting to wonder. I normally don't care what others think, but that particular comment really struck me.


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

*Hush Puppies, loafers and Loakes*



cincydavid said:


> To steer this thread back to the shoes, my ONLY Loake shoes are Indian-made model 256 brown suede loafers. They fit and feel OK, but someone called them "hushpuppies" and I haven't worn them since. I thought they were spiffy, but now I'm starting to wonder. I normally don't care what others think, but that particular comment really struck me.


Hard to see how a brown suede loafer, regardless of its provenance, could avoid looking like a Hush Puppy!:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

cincydavid said:


> To steer this thread back to the shoes, my ONLY Loake shoes are Indian-made model 256 brown suede loafers. They fit and feel OK, but someone called them "hushpuppies" and I haven't worn them since. I thought they were spiffy, but now I'm starting to wonder. I normally don't care what others think, but that particular comment really struck me.


Post a pic


----------



## jeffreyc (Apr 8, 2010)

Ive got my third pair of Loakes in the wardrobe, they usually get a wear once every fortnight. I bought them for my last marriage, 10 years ago, and had them resoled once.
Still going strong but despite care showing small signs of the leather cracking on the uppers. Probably another 10 years left !
I must agree that they are not as well made and comfortable as the Edward Greens, Poulsen Skone and Crockett and Jones that I have but still like them.
I also think that my Allen Edmonds MacNeil's are better.


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

*"Better" shoes and "Better" manufacturing techniques?*



Langham said:


> I would say Loake, Barker and Sanders are of similar quality, and Cheaney somewhat better. Crockett & Jones and Trickers use superior calfskin - generally softer and suppler. I have a few Alfred Sargent shoes but they are all quite old - brogues and veldtschoen mostly, of impeccably robust construction but not exactly svelte. I'm not sure you will find any significant differences in how well made the shoes are from any of these firms - they all use the same methods, with similar machinery. Better quality leather for both uppers and soles, however, will tend to make the more expensive shoes both more comfortable and longer-lasting.


The little discussion has opened up two interesting, almost theological, questions:-

1) What makes a "better" shoe? Is it looks, leather, longevity, comfort, stylishness, exclusivity, repairability, robustness, water-resistance, heritage, provenance ... or many other characteristics that I have forgotten. Surely it depends upon what you want the shoe to do. A wellie boot (Wellington boot https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=w...oAQ&biw=768&bih=928#biv=i|2;d|cE1jj8ccwPQVKM: , for those unfamiliar with Scottish slang!) is the best shoe for many conditions and purposes!

2) Is a "hand-sewn", "hand-cut", etc shoe *intrinsically* any better than one sewn/cut/etc using a machine? Surely this also depends upon the operation and I think we need an honest shoemaker to tell us the answer for each process. I'm sure that it needs a trained eye and much experience to select pieces of leather to form (say) the vamp of a shoe and also to align the grain to best effect. Once that's done, I'm fairly confident that a well-maintained and expertly-operated clicking machine will cut the vamp(s) out just as accurately as would a hand-clicker with a scalpel and template. Conversely, burnishing* is *probably best done by hand, as artistic judgement must be combined with an expert assessment of the effect the burnishing is having on the (grainy) surface of the leather. Unless you visit an old-school shoemaker like Laszlo Vass , as Langham sez - they all use pretty much the same machinery and processes.

Exercise for the student ... discuss!


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^^Leather, longevity, etc etc - all desirable characteristics, and fortunately those discerning enough to enjoy high-quality shoes are almost spoilt for choice at the present time.

Partly as an autodidactic exercise in craft I have been attempting to make my own footwear. So far, two pairs of slippers in slightly unusual colours, that I am reasonably pleased with. However, the main benefit to me has been the redoubling of my appreciation of the really fine skill and craftsmanship required to make even the most humble pair of shoes to a commercially acceptable standard.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

I have a few pair of Vass and feel comfortable in my assessment that they are a good few rungs up from Loake on the quality scale. Of course, for anyone who requires hard statistical data to support any differentiation, they are entirely equivalent. I'm cool with that. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

One could perhaps allow for the market still having some equalizing powers, and that expenses in labor, materials and capital investments will affect price, and that a higher price may at least indicate higher expenses, and since these companies have been making shoes for a long time, expect there to be some connection between price and the value of the good. 

In the absence of statistical evidence to the contrary, I'm happy assuming that more expensive British shoes are better, in all ways except as in being cheaper.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

afm said:


> I have examples of both and the entry level shoes do what they say on the packet (with the exception of the Woodstocks , which definitely punch above their weight).


Since you've sung the praises of the Woodstock at least twice in this thread, can I ask your opinion on the sizing of that shoe. I did own a pair of Woodstocks, the brown/tan ones, and I really liked them, but sold them on Ebay after wearing a few times, as they were too large.
I see that refers to them as being "a generious fitting", and I'm sure I've seen another shop recommend dropping half a size with them.

Do you have them is a smaller size than your other Loakes?


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

*By the time they got to Woodstock, they were half a million strong ...*



Odradek said:


> Since you've sung the praises of the Woodstock at least twice in this thread, can I ask your opinion on the sizing of that shoe. I did own a pair of Woodstocks, the brown/tan ones, and I really liked them, but sold them on Ebay after wearing a few times, as they were too large.
> I see that refers to them as being "a generious fitting", and I'm sure I've seen another shop recommend dropping half a size with them.
> 
> Do you have them is a smaller size than your other Loakes?


No - mine are the same size as my other Loakes, but I wear a good-quality insole with all my "wide-fit"/G Loakes. Then they are just fine.


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Handmade-S...d=1366402131&sr=8-1&keywords=Laszlo+vass+book:icon_smile:


RogerP said:


> I have a few pair of Vass and feel comfortable in my assessment that they are a good few rungs up from Loake on the quality scale. Of course, for anyone who requires hard statistical data to support any differentiation, they are entirely equivalent. I'm cool with that. :icon_smile_big:


I think the key point is that you enjoy them more than you would enjoy a pair of Loakes, and I'm equally cool with that. I don't need to know the reason. Keep on enjoying the great Laszlo's creations. I'll continue to enjoy my Loakes. Do read Laszlo's book https://www.amazon.co.uk/Handmade-S...d=1366402131&sr=8-1&keywords=Laszlo+vass+book- it's fascinating.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

I have read Laszlo's book cover-to-cover, it is indeed fascinating. I would join you in recommending it to anyone with an interest in hand made shoes.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

afm said:


> No - mine are the same size as my other Loakes, but I wear a good-quality insole with all my "wide-fit"/G Loakes. Then they are just fine.


Thanks.
Good to know. I'll probably buy another pair of Woodstocks sometime, but a half size smaller.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

RogerP said:


> I have read Laszlo's book cover-to-cover, it is indeed fascinating. I would join you in recommending it to anyone with an interest in hand made shoes.


It is indeed a good book.


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

*Laszlo Vass book*



Bjorn said:


> It is indeed a good book.


A fascinating book on the whole leather/shoe history, craft, science ... you don't have to be able to buy Laszlo's shoes to get pleasure from greater understanding of the shoes that you *do *have. Highly recommended.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

afm said:


> The little discussion has opened up two interesting, almost theological, questions:-
> 
> 1) What makes a "better" shoe? Is it looks, leather, longevity, comfort, stylishness, exclusivity, repairability, robustness, water-resistance, heritage, provenance ... or many other characteristics that I have forgotten. Surely it depends upon what you want the shoe to do. A wellie boot (Wellington boot https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=wellington+boot&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=nKFxUcHhGKuS0AWO74HgAQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=768&bih=928#biv=i%7C2%3Bd%7CcE1jj8ccwPQVKM%3A , for those unfamiliar with Scottish slang!) is the best shoe for many conditions and purposes!
> 
> ...


The same machinery and process does not necessarily equal the same results. More talented operatives can achieve significantly better outcomes. As example: I am a dab hand with a needle and thread, however, you may be assured that a tailor should make a better coat than I.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Over 25 years ago I bought a pair of "Loake Bros." black semi-brogues out of a bin in a shop, for $25, new. A little wide, but I thought "here's a rain/mud/snow/yuck shoe that might still be passable in the office". Well over 15 years later, that shoe still looked pretty good, despite having been worn almost exclusively in bad weather. If they are the same folks as current Loake, I'll take their shoes any day.


----------



## katastrofa (Feb 1, 2012)

Belfaborac said:


> My impression is that the better finishing of the more expensive shoe accounts for the majority of the extra hand work. I also don't really see why hand made trumps machine made where quality or durability is concerned, just as I don't see the importance of the number of manufacturing steps.


I suppose on a psychological level, it appeals to us that another human being spent hours of diligent work over something we wear on our feet.

I also read somewhere that machines are more "rough" and more likely to damage the material your shoes are being made of. Hence, if you want to use more soft and delicate leather, you have to make the shoes by hand. However, that would imply that when looking for sturdy country boots, them being hand-made is not a concern.

I think it's easy to explain why the number of manufacturing steps (which is probably an ill-defined parameter, because you are free to decide what you consider a "separate step"... I could say that typing this comment required 200 separate steps ) is correlated with the quality of the shoe. If you take more steps, you can make the shoe more adapted to the shape of human foot, you can strengthen it in the exact places it needs to be strengthened, give it flexibility in the exact places it needs to be flexible, and also give it more detailed decoration.


----------



## TenleytownDC (Apr 19, 2013)

Of greatest importance to me is that a hand made shoe translates to perfect proportionality. Take the Balmoral. I am a US size 9. The designer(s) seem to design for a larger, more commercial size and the manufacturers tend to simply increase or decrease the layout of the cuts and stitching in direct proportion to the change in size. The result for my size is an overly clunky look with the stitching for the cap and throat almost on top of each other. My bespoke Balmorals have a much thinner seam and he altered the throat stitch and carried it around the shoe. A hand made shoe is unique, brings great joy and will last a lifetime. This leads to consideration number two. Do I want/need a look that is not commercially available. Yes, I rarely do need a bespoke - I always want one. I only own a few - they are dear in price. In the end it may be vanity but with bespoke if there ever is an issue with a shoe I know I can place it in a box and be certain it will be returned in the condition it first arrived. It makes me feel better when I walk out the door. Perhaps it shouldn't but dressing well does.


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

Shaver said:


> The same machinery and process does not necessarily equal the same results. More talented operatives can achieve significantly better outcomes. As example: I am a dab hand with a needle and thread, however, you may be assured that a tailor should make a better coat than I.


Thanks, Shaver .... who sez "The same machinery and process does not necessarily equal the same results" ... I agree 100%. My point is that "hand-sewn", "hand-cut" etc does not necessarily mean better, in that a good and well-maintained machine operated by a skilled craftsman might actually do just as well, and may even some things *better* than they would be done purely by hand. I'm not a shoemaker, but I'd guess that clicking and welt-sewing might be a job best suited to a machine with a skilled human operator, while choosing leather, aligning its grain and stretch to the part of the shoe that it's about to form and burnishing (for example) are all best done manually, using skilled hands and eyes. My analogy would be spraying your car with paint. Would you rather have than done with a paintbrush or by a skilled operator in a spray booth? Alternative but similar analogy ... I have a very nice handmade English guitar (made by Ralph Bown from York). Most of the operations in making it were, indeed, done by hand ... but the final spray of lacquer was not.

Interesting to get all these views - especially as there is no right answer ...we can debate it merrily 'til the cows come home! Best, Alan (=afm).


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

TenleytownDC said:


> Of greatest importance to me is that a hand made shoe translates to perfect proportionality. Take the Balmoral. I am a US size 9. The designer(s) seem to design for a larger, more commercial size and the manufacturers tend to simply increase or decrease the layout of the cuts and stitching in direct proportion to the change in size. The result for my size is an overly clunky look with the stitching for the cap and throat almost on top of each other. My bespoke Balmorals have a much thinner stitch and he altered the throat stitch and carried it around the shoe. A hand made shoe is unique, brings great joy and will last a lifetime. This leads to consideration number two. Do I want/need a look that is not commercially available. Yes, I rarely do need a bespoke - I always want one. I only own a few - they are dear in price. In the end it may be vanity but with bespoke if there ever is an issue with a shoe I know I can place it in a box and be certain it will be returned in the condition it first arrived. It makes me feel better when I walk out the door. Perhaps it shouldn't but dressing well does.


Enjoy your especially-posh bespokes TTDC. You reason for having them makes complete sense to me - they satisfy your enjoyment of something unique.


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

katastrofa said:


> I suppose on a psychological level, it appeals to us that another human being spent hours of diligent work over something we wear on our feet.
> 
> I also read somewhere that machines are more "rough" and more likely to damage the material your shoes are being made of. Hence, if you want to use more soft and delicate leather, you have to make the shoes by hand. However, that would imply that when looking for sturdy country boots, them being hand-made is not a concern.
> 
> I think it's easy to explain why the number of manufacturing steps (which is probably an ill-defined parameter, because you are free to decide what you consider a "separate step"... I could say that typing this comment required 200 separate steps ) is correlated with the quality of the shoe. If you take more steps, you can make the shoe more adapted to the shape of human foot, you can strengthen it in the exact places it needs to be strengthened, give it flexibility in the exact places it needs to be flexible, and also give it more detailed decoration.


I would guess that "number of steps" isn't either better or worse - it's getting the design, components, process and materials *correct for the shoe's purpose* is what matters. Which is kinda what katastrofa is saying.


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

My guess is that your heroic Loake Bros shoes are, indeed the Loakes of this thread, as the Loake history sez "In 1880 three _brothers_ began a tradition of fine, handmade shoemaking that five generations of the _Loake_ family have been proud to maintain." Also the brand name "Loake Bros" has been used by Loake. Regarding your ageless shoes, have you checked that there isn't a really old pair in the attic that looks absolutely awful, thus allowing your much-loved black semi-brogues to stay untrammelled by the years? They must be an example of the style called the "Loake Dorian". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Picture_of_Dorian_Gray:biggrin:


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

afm said:


> My guess is that your heroic Loake Bros shoes are, indeed the Loakes of this thread, as the Loake history sez "In 1880 three _brothers_ began a tradition of fine, handmade shoemaking that five generations of the _Loake_ family have been proud to maintain." Also the brand name "Loake Bros" has been used by Loake. Regarding your ageless shoes, have you checked that there isn't a really old pair in the attic that looks absolutely awful, thus allowing your much-loved black semi-brogues to stay untrammelled by the years? They must be an example of the style called the "Loake Dorian". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Picture_of_Dorian_Gray:biggrin:


I don't go into those shadowy corners. Wear the shoes, whistle past the graveyard, etc.


----------



## Mr Humphries (Apr 5, 2013)

Mr Humphries said:


> Just to sidetrack the thread somewhat...coud anyone advise me as to what products i should use to keep these Loakes in good nick please?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ I use this and highly recommend it, ideal for calf skin shoes.

See the results here: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...e-shine-without-wax-polish&highlight=collonil


----------



## Mr Humphries (Apr 5, 2013)

Much obliged Shaver, looks just the ticket.


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

*Stuff for keeping nice shoes nice*



Mr Humphries said:


> Much obliged Shaver, looks just the ticket.


I'm with Mr Humphries on this. Use a good shoe cream (neutral or very light tan in this case) and a really good wax polish every so often. I really like this stuff but they don't do a light tan, so I use Kiwi or Cherry Blossom instead. Happy polishing. Alan.


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

phyrpowr said:


> I don't go into those shadowy corners. Wear the shoes, whistle past the graveyard, etc.


Hee, hee! Very droll. Worthy of Oscar Wilde himself!


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

I periodically ask this in these Loake threads, but what do you all think about the Loake Shoemaker line? I kind of want (long-ish term) some brown suede single monks, and the Paisley appeals. Goodyear-welted, English-made (I know, this doesn't necessarily reflect quality, but it qualifies as a feature for me) for less than the price of made-in-India Cole Haans? That sounds pretty good to me. Is the quality there? 

Obviously, most of the offerings in that line are corrected grain, but is there anything else that qualifies as a compromise compared to the 1880 line? Is there a major difference in workmanship?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> I periodically ask this in these Loake threads, but what do you all think about the Loake Shoemaker line? I kind of want (long-ish term) some brown suede single monks, and the Paisley appeals. Goodyear-welted, English-made (I know, this doesn't necessarily reflect quality, but it qualifies as a feature for me) for less than the price of made-in-India Cole Haans? That sounds pretty good to me. Is the quality there?
> 
> Obviously, most of the offerings in that line are corrected grain, but is there anything else that qualifies as a compromise compared to the 1880 line? Is there a major difference in workmanship?


Hello Y/R - I have a couple of pairs of Loake's corrected leather shoes although from the 'Design' range but purchased, I believe, prior to it being outsourced to India. They are remarkably well made - in fact much as I want to replace them with something in calf-skin they just refuse to die!


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

Shaver said:


> Hello Y/R - I have a couple of pairs of Loake's corrected leather shoes although from the 'Design' range but purchased, I believe, prior to it being outsourced to India. They are remarkably well made - in fact much as I want to replace them with something in calf-skin they just refuse to die!


Hmm. I'd say that probably reflects pretty well on the Shoemaker line, then. Thank you.


----------



## TheRomanhistorian (Feb 7, 2010)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> Hmm. I'd say that probably reflects pretty well on the Shoemaker line, then. Thank you.


I have the Loake 641s from the Shoemaker Line and I rather like them (I have a pair of the Aldwyches in dark brown from the 1880 line as well). The 641 is a nice pair of country shoes and I haven't been able to truly spot the major differences (other than slightly thicker/stiffer leather uppers?).


----------



## TenleytownDC (Apr 19, 2013)

Will this darken the leather? I have a very subtle shade variation in a London tannish wing tip. I've been only applying neutral wax at the moment as I am uncertain if the lighter will become uniform with the ever so slightly darker. Tests to the tongue have been inconclusive - using clear meltonian cream.



Shaver said:


> ^ I use this and highly recommend it, ideal for calf skin shoes.
> 
> See the results here: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...e-shine-without-wax-polish&highlight=collonil


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> I periodically ask this in these Loake threads, but what do you all think about the Loake Shoemaker line? I kind of want (long-ish term) some brown suede single monks, and the Paisley appeals. Goodyear-welted, English-made (I know, this doesn't necessarily reflect quality, but it qualifies as a feature for me) for less than the price of made-in-India Cole Haans? That sounds pretty good to me. Is the quality there?
> 
> Obviously, most of the offerings in that line are corrected grain, but is there anything else that qualifies as a compromise compared to the 1880 line? Is there a major difference in workmanship?


Checked on the Loake Paisley and it looks almost exactly the same as the Herring Cardiff, which is made by Loake, but not in the UK. 
Same 3625 last, but imported. And £45 cheaper.
Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

Theromanhistorian:

Good to know. It also seems like only some of the "Shoemaker" shoes have a full leather lining.



Odradek said:


> Checked on the Loake Paisley and it looks almost exactly the same as the Herring Cardiff, which is made by Loake, but not in the UK.
> Same 3625 last, but imported. And £45 cheaper.
> Your mileage may vary.


Well, if you take away VAT and add in shipping, it becomes around £116 for Paisleys from Robinson's (who'll ship free to the States), and about £100 for the Herrings. To my way of thinking, that's a small enough premium to pay.

On the other hand, that same Herring line has the Reading, which is another made-in-India Loake shoe on the same last. That one doesn't have a Loake equivalent (it's a half-brogue, while the Loake is a full-brogue). If I felt an itch for a brown suede half brogue, that's how I'd scratch it.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

TenleytownDC said:


> Will this darken the leather? I have a very subtle shade variation in a London tannish wing tip. I've been only applying neutral wax at the moment as I am uncertain if the lighter will become uniform with the ever so slightly darker. Tests to the tongue have been inconclusive - using clear meltonian cream.


Hello Timothy, I have been using this product on my calf-skin shoes for many years and have not noticed any darkening of the leather. As well as buffing up to a wonderful soft lustrous shine the lotion really seems to protect the leather, in fact I rarely need to use it these days (I am presuming my footwear is now heavily impregnated with the product?) A quick (but firm) wipe over with a cloth after every wearing seems to bring the shine back out. Collonil lotion also shows off the grain of the leather to marevellous effect too.


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

*Loake Shoemaker range*



Youthful Repp-robate said:


> I periodically ask this in these Loake threads, but what do you all think about the Loake Shoemaker line? I kind of want (long-ish term) some brown suede single monks, and the Paisley appeals. Goodyear-welted, English-made (I know, this doesn't necessarily reflect quality, but it qualifies as a feature for me) for less than the price of made-in-India Cole Haans? That sounds pretty good to me. Is the quality there?
> 
> Obviously, most of the offerings in that line are corrected grain, but is there anything else that qualifies as a compromise compared to the 1880 line? Is there a major difference in workmanship?


I only have the "Braemar" from this range and it's a comfortable and smart shoe. I can't see any major difference in workmanship between it and my 1880 Loakes, but that doesn't help you much toward suede Monks! Sorry ... Alan.


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

Shaver said:


> Hello Timothy, I have been using this product on my calf-skin shoes for many years and have not noticed any darkening of the leather. As well as buffing up to a wonderful soft lustrous shine the lotion really seems to protect the leather, in fact I rarely need to use it these days (I am presuming my footwear is now heavily impregnated with the product?) A quick (but firm) wipe over with a cloth after every wearing seems to bring the shine back out. Collonil lotion also shows off the grain of the leather to marevellous effect too.


Sometimes I take fright when I slap shoe cream on my paler shoes, as they go alarmingly dark very suddenly - but that disappears as the cream sinks in and I polish the residue off!


----------



## TenleytownDC (Apr 19, 2013)

Thanks for your guidance and reassurance. I will give it a go. Thanks to Mr. Shaver as well - not quite road ready on these reply boxes. I may not have done the multi thanks properly.


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

TenleytownDC said:


> Thanks for your guidance and reassurance. I will give it a go. Thanks to Mr. Shaver as well - not quite road ready on these reply boxes. I may not have done the multi thanks properly.


I would also advise the usual "try this on a small and inconspicuous area before proceeding" advice. A small experiment on the heel is generally wise and reassuring!


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

I have said before that Loake is probably the most common brand on sale in the City of London. All those independent clothes shops have a few in stock. It is at the lower end of the price range where people do not worry about things like 'corrected grain'.

Discount shoes in Strutton Ground beats all comers on Loake pricing and they stock the Loake Royal too.


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

*Loakes in London*



Kingstonian said:


> I have said before that Loake is probably the most common brand on sale in the City of London. All those independent clothes shops have a few in stock. It is at the lower end of the price range where people do not worry about things like 'corrected grain'.
> 
> Discount shoes in Strutton Ground beats all comers on Loake pricing and they stock the Loake Royal too.


In Edinburgh they tend to be shelved along with Church/Barker/Cheaney and have even been known to appear in Debenhams! I'd disagree (respectfully!) with Kingstonian about "... people do not worry about things like 'corrected grain". Loake is probably the first shoe range in terms of price where you can, if you want to, think about corrected grain - which is worth doing, depending upon what you want from the shoe. I suspect that most people don't in fact, even know what corrected grain means and are just happy with what the shoe looks and feels like. They leave that (sensibly) to shoe-nerds like us.
:wink2:


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

*Let's drop some added value into this thread - some generally useful Shoeology ...*



Langham said:


> A nice film from Kettering - it mentions resoling.


Here are some sites that are good if you want to learn a bit more about shoe and leather types. None of them is as good as Laszlo Vass's book - which I recommend to all students of Shoeology (see link below). Dunno about you, but I get more enjoyment from nice things if I know more about them, how they are made and how they work.

*General glossary* - https://www.pediwear.co.uk/glossary.php or or https://www.shoedigest.com/shoe-dictionary/
*Leather glossary *- https://www.natanning.com/natcorpleather_glossary.htm
*Shoe types and much more* - https://oldleathershoe.com/wordpress/?p=173
*Loake's own take on shoe care of Facebook *https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.358530637556740.82596.259042864172185&type=1
and then there's always the Bible ...
*"Handmade Shoes for Men", by Laszlo Vass* - https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/3848003686/

Happy browsing - examination next week (not!).

Alan


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Thanks in advance for those links - I look forward to checking them out.


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

*Another little Loakey link*



RogerP said:


> Thanks in advance for those links - I look forward to checking them out.


 



I have another movie called " A history of Loake Shoemakers" which must have come from YouTube, but now I can't find it. In some ways, its the best of the batch with some historical background.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Loake shoes are very easy to love,......Unless you have narrow feet. (To be fair it's the same story with every U.K. shoe manufacture I have researched.)


The few U.K. shoe manufactures that offer narrow widths do so in very limited styles. I wear a "C" in most American lasts and finding a British shoe in this width is all but impossible. I'd buy a pair like the one you've posted in your first post today if I could be fit.


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

*A finding - keeping your brogues lookin' good*



afm said:


> Hello Andyforumites. I've looked at these posts with interest and I have finally taken the plunge and joined.
> 
> Loake takes a bit of stick in some posts here, but my experience of them has always been extremely positive. They were my first departure from decades of cheap n'nasty (or even expensive n'nasty) high street shoes and I am now a devotee. Apart from a couple of pairs of Loakes-by-Herring and obvious things like trainers, and beach-bum sandals, all my shoes are Loake. You get what you pay for, in the very best sense of that phrase, with Loakes. The made-in-in-India "L1" pairs at just over £100RRP are FAR better than most shoe-store shoes and will do what is says on the packet (although the Lifestyle Range Woodstock is a cut above the average and most definitely not a bog-standard shoe). At the other end, the 100%-made-in-Kettering 1880 range at about twice that price are outstanding (IMHO) ... and there are further made-in-England ranges in between. The 1880's leather is noticeably top-end calf and the styles are many and varied. I have had a couple of teething roubles with Loakes and the company's response has been a free re-sole of a pair (for a single shoe that was squeaking!) and a new set of inner counters to stop another pair of shoes rubbing my heel. All done quickly, with great courtesy and free postage back to me.
> 
> ...


Just discovered a new shoe-cleaner's friend - a discarded but still working electric toothbrush! It's done some service on my choppers, but I can still get new heads for it. It is *perfect *for an occasional scouring oiut of the brogueing - getting out any wax and cream that's got stuck down there. Eureka!


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

The UK footwear brands are focused on style rather than fit.



127.72 MHz said:


> Loake shoes are very easy to love,......Unless you have narrow feet. (To be fair it's the same story with every U.K. shoe manufacture I have researched.)
> 
> The few U.K. shoe manufactures that offer narrow widths do so in very limited styles. I wear a "C" in most American lasts and finding a British shoe in this width is all but impossible. I'd buy a pair like the one you've posted in your first post today if I could be fit.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

DG123 said:


> The UK footwear brands are focused on style rather than fit.


This, again?


----------



## TheRomanhistorian (Feb 7, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> This, again?


Bjorn: I've learned to tune that out but I think many must grow rather weary of the dogma. It's as if you can't have a thread about English shoes without the constant 'style over substance' nonsense. All I know is that my Loakes are some of my nicer entry-level English shoes. I have Church's, Edward Greens, Cheaneys, and a pair of C&Js but my three pairs of Loakes are still my favourites. I may have to pick some more up when I visit London again this summer!

afm: Interesting tip with the toothbrush. (I'm going to nick that one, if you don't mind).


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

TheRomanhistorian said:


> All I know is that my Loakes are some of my nicer entry-level English shoes. I have Church's, Edward Greens, Cheaneys, and a pair of C&Js but my three pairs of Loakes are still my favourites. I may have to pick some more up when I visit London again this summer!


Discount shoes in Strutton Ground, Victoria are 25% cheaper on Loake than Herring and Pediwear, though they mostly concentrate on the cheaper lines.


----------



## TheRomanhistorian (Feb 7, 2010)

Kingstonian said:


> Discount shoes in Strutton Ground, Victoria are 25% cheaper on Loake than Herring and Pediwear, though they mostly concentrate on the cheaper lines.


Kingstonian: Thank you very much for this information and I will certainly be giving them too much of my custom when I arrive!


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

TheRomanhistorian said:


> Bjorn: I've learned to tune that out* but I think many must grow rather weary of the dogma. It's as if you can't have a thread about English shoes without the constant 'style over substance' nonsense.* All I know is that my Loakes are some of my nicer entry-level English shoes. I have Church's, Edward Greens, Cheaneys, and a pair of C&Js but my three pairs of Loakes are still my favourites. I may have to pick some more up when I visit London again this summer!
> 
> afm: Interesting tip with the toothbrush. (I'm going to nick that one, if you don't mind).


Agree completely.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Kingstonian said:


> Discount shoes in Strutton Ground, Victoria are 25% cheaper on Loake than Herring and Pediwear, though they mostly concentrate on the cheaper lines.


Here's their website, though they don't list any prices on it.
Since they don't open on weekends, I've never managed to get there yet.
But I aim to, sometime soon.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Discount shoes had several of the Berwick range which I had not heard of before. When I Google I see they are an interesting new Spanish brand.
https://www.theshoesnobblog.com/2012/12/berwick-shoes-new-player-in-industry.html

It is a shame Bexley do not have a London shop.


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

*More Woodstocking ...*



Odradek said:


> Since you've sung the praises of the Woodstock at least twice in this thread, can I ask your opinion on the sizing of that shoe. I did own a pair of Woodstocks, the brown/tan ones, and I really liked them, but sold them on Ebay after wearing a few times, as they were too large.
> I see that refers to them as being "a generious fitting", and I'm sure I've seen another shop recommend dropping half a size with them.
> 
> Do you have them is a smaller size than your other Loakes?


Notes on Woodstock care ...

1) The combination of calf (pale bits) and corrected (shiny dark bits) means that these take slightly more careful breaking in than most Loakes. It took a few wearings before the shoes learned to bend in the right place over my toe joints. This meant a little temporary discomfort, but whacking neutral leather balm on the pale bits helps. Now they are mega-comfortable.
2) Use a polish/cream that matches the pale sections ON THE WHOLE SHOE until you have something on the dark bits that needs correcting (scuff?). Then use a dark polish on the dark shiny bits very carefully, when 100% sober (!) and alert. Might even be toothbrush time, but as with Spectator/Corresponent shoes, watch for grains of wax landing on the wrong colour zone. Cream is safer.

afm ... also known as Alan ... or Jeeves(!).


----------



## Fatman (May 7, 2013)

For Loake fans:

Did you have to order shoes 1/2 size smaller or larger than your usual?

For US readers: I am a size 9 US is most shoes. Would I be 8UK or 8.5UK ?

thanks. 

​FM


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

Kingstonian said:


> Discount shoes had several of the Berwick range which I had not heard of before. When I Google I see they are an interesting new Spanish brand.
> https://www.theshoesnobblog.com/2012/12/berwick-shoes-new-player-in-industry.html
> 
> It is a shame Bexley do not have a London shop.


Berwick seem really interesting. UK members might want to check them out on amazon.co.uk -- they run about a hundred pounds for Goodyear-welted calf shoes. If they'd ship to the US, I'd be very interested.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Kingstonian said:


> Discount shoes had several of the Berwick range which I had not heard of before. When I Google I see they are an interesting new Spanish brand.
> https://www.theshoesnobblog.com/2012/12/berwick-shoes-new-player-in-industry.html
> 
> It is a shame Bexley do not have a London shop.


Do Discount Shoes carry the Loake 1880 range? Aiming to buy some burgundy Strands this year.

It's a shame Allen Edmonds don't have a London shop too.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

^ Some 1880 - like Kempton - but mostly cheaper lines.


----------



## Fatman (May 7, 2013)

Discount Shoes do not ship to US.


----------



## afm (Apr 11, 2013)

*Loake sizing*



Fatman said:


> For Loake fans:
> 
> Did you have to order shoes 1/2 size smaller or larger than your usual?
> 
> ...


Probably go half a size smaller. My shoes are now almost all Loake (!) but the others I have tend to be 7.5 or even 8. Loakes all 7.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

afm said:


> Probably go half a size smaller. My shoes are now almost all Loake (!) but the others I have tend to be 7.5 or even 8. Loakes all 7.


Is that across the board. I have found it myself on the pair of Woodstocks I owned.
Looking at the Shoehealer website, .


> _Although this model is detailed as a regular 'F' fititng, we are finding this last to be a generious fit and would recommend dropping down half a size._


Moving on, what's the concensus here on the ?
Made in India, which might be a big minus point for many, but is it too "fashion forward" with that toe punching?
I like the fact that it has 6 lacing eyelets as opposed to the usual 5 on English shoes.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Odradek said:


> Is that across the board. I have found it myself on the pair of Woodstocks I owned.
> Looking at the Shoehealer website, .
> 
> Moving on, what's the concensus here on the ?
> ...


I dislike the punching which looks rather hacienda. Looks like a very Latin shoe, for better or worse.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

I also don't like it.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> I dislike the punching which looks rather hacienda. Looks like a very Latin shoe, for better or worse.





Leighton said:


> I also don't like it.


Somehow I knew that would be the view.
Can't make my mind up about it but can see why folks would dislike it.
Looks a bit like an air-vent. Perhaps the square toe of punching. But still, interesting.

_"A contrary pancake surely, a fingerish atrocity but not without a queer charm all its own." 
The Third Policeman, Flann O'Brien _


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Your feet. :wink2:


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Kingstonian said:


> I have said before that Loake is probably the most common brand on sale in the City of London. All those independent clothes shops have a few in stock. It is at the lower end of the price range where people do not worry about things like 'corrected grain'.
> 
> Discount shoes in Strutton Ground beats all comers on Loake pricing and they stock the Loake Royal too.





Kingstonian said:


> Discount shoes in Strutton Ground, Victoria are 25% cheaper on Loake than Herring and Pediwear, though they mostly concentrate on the cheaper lines.


I was in London today so made my way across the park to check out Discount Shoe Sales, in Strutton Ground.
A nice 15 minute walk from Jermyn Street.

At lunchtime on a sunny weekday they were doing a brisk trade with 5 or 6 people trying on shoes in the rather small shop.
Yes, they do have bargains, but from a limited stock of shoes. Mostly Loake's lower ranges. I didn't see any Loake 1880 there.

Kingstonian is right however, they are 25% or maybe 30% cheaper than most other shops.
Plenty of office workers in there today buying shoes.
Loake Royal Brogues were £120, and they go for £150 or £155 elsewhere.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

My new Loake Strands, which arrived the other day.
Weather too wet with muddy footpaths to risk a trip outdoors in them yet.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Funny coincidence. my Chili AE Strands just arrived today.


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

RogerP said:


> Agree completely.


Well, the thing with Loakes is that they are not only very good looking shoes, but they offer tremendous value. My Loake-made Herrings Coltham Chelsea boot actually eliminated much of the pain that my bone spurs on my heels have. Amazing but true. And with so many on line vendors who ship to the USA, these shoes are really a no brainer. There's basically no reason not own a pair or 2 of Loakes.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

My complaint about Loakes is the same complaint about all British shoes,......They do not make very many models for people with narrow feet. I love British shoe styles, I hate the fact that they're medium widths are wider than most U.S. lasts and they wides are for fellas with Fred Flintstone feet.

I'm a C in most U.S. lasts but that doesn't help me with Loakes, Trickers, Churches, etc. etc. (I could go on and on but you get the idea.)


----------



## TheoProf (Dec 17, 2012)

Odradek said:


> My new Loake Strands, which arrived the other day.
> Weather too wet with muddy footpaths to risk a trip outdoors in them yet.


Oradek, those are beautiful. Wear them in good health. Congrats.


----------



## Bob Sacamano (Jul 27, 2013)

127.72 MHz said:


> My complaint about Loakes is the same complaint about all British shoes,......They do not make very many models for people with narrow feet. I love British shoe styles, I hate the fact that they're medium widths are wider than most U.S. lasts and they wides are for fellas with Fred Flintstone feet.
> 
> I'm a C in most U.S. lasts but that doesn't help me with Loakes, Trickers, Churches, etc. etc. (I could go on and on but you get the idea.)


Have you tried the C&J 348 last, it is considerably more narrow than any AEs I have (strand and McAllister).


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Loake have come out with a new longwing brogue on the 026 last, the n. Subtle two-toning.
Hopefully they haven't scrimped by having seam on the instep as with the Royal Brogue.



















Nice to see shoes photographed outside for a change, in the real world, instead of against a white studio backdrop.

I found these photos on , and then saw mention of Loake 1880 MTO, with a photo of Loake Buckinghams in burgundy, a colour they don't normally come in.
Investigating further, and using Google to translate from the Swedish give this info....


> _Made To Order (MTO) means that the customer can compose his own model with existing molds, materials, soles, etc. In the current situation, this is done only to our dealers since the minimum number of production are relatively high. *Many of the models labeled MTO shown on this website are exclusive to the Scandinavian market and are usually made in limited editions.*_


.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Odradek said:


> Loake have come out with a new longwing brogue on the 026 last, the n. Subtle two-toning.......
> .......


With the more "subtle two-toning," is the shoe still considered to be a Spectator design? In any event, they are quite a handsome and memorable shoe design. :icon_scratch:


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Odredek, the shoes are sublime.

I have not tried the C&J 348 last.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

, and variations on existing shoes, coming early in 2015.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Cross-posting from the Trad Forum.

More boots....

I was supposed to be buying something practical with a Dainite sole for winter, but this was an impulse buy as they were selling at big discount on the Loake Factory Outlet ebay store.
Burford suede boots.
Got the last pair in my size.


----------



## Veblen (Aug 18, 2014)

Those Burfords look great! Seems like a fortunate find to me.

I guess I'd fit in this thread, too. A 2009 pair of Loake Pimlico boots have been my "entry point" into well-made footwear. So far they have held up well even with somewhat unobsessive care. Now my everyday rotation consists of three pairs of Pimlicos, supplemented by a pair each of black Aldwychs and burgundy Strands for more "dressed-up" occasions. So I'm quite satisfied with the brand.

Though I'm looking at varying my footwear rotation a bit. Still I'd prefer to stick to Dainite-soled shoes for everyday wear for now.
I'm quite enticed by the Herring Knightsbridge in Tobacco calf, which, I presume, is made by Loake.

https://www.herringshoes.co.uk/product-info.php?&shoeid=7364&colourid=3915&brandid=6

However I'm only really familiar with the Capital last (F width), which fits me well. How might the Knightsbridge's 026 last compare in fit and sizing? Thanks!


----------

