# LL Bean Signature blucher mocs -- fall/winter wear only?



## dparm (Nov 18, 2008)

Are these considered acceptable to wear in the summertime in place of boat shoes? Perhaps with different laces?

Not really impressed with the quality of Top-Siders lately and the Docksides just don't fit my feet that well. I have these already and love them.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Those are appropriate for wear in refuse bins of all types.


----------



## Atterberg (Mar 11, 2012)

If you love them, go for it!

Although my mind's eye is telling me that, as you suspect, alternate laces may look better.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Alternate shoes would look even better.


----------



## dparm (Nov 18, 2008)

Atterberg said:


> If you love them, go for it!
> 
> Although my mind's eye is telling me that, as you suspect, alternate laces may look better.


I was thinking a bright solid like red or green would look sharp.


----------



## dkoernert (May 31, 2011)

Derailing for a moment if I may. Can I ask what doesn't impress you about Topsiders? I am asking because I am in the same camp as you when it comes to that. I have had a few recent pairs fall apart on me rather quickly, particularly the eyelets on the sides have come out almost instantly. They used to be my go-to shoes in the summertime, but I've recently been hesitant to buy some new ones.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Please understand that I'm not just throwing bricks. By your own admission you're not currently satisfied with Sperry Topsiders. Well Sperry Topsiders look like John Lobb compared to these things. It's like the same construction used to make doll shoes scaled up to man-size. They're not fit for human consumption. 

I'd urge you to check out the Sebago Campside Blucher Moc. Much better shoe. Or Rancourt, who seem to be on track to produce the essential version of every possible trad shoe.


----------



## dparm (Nov 18, 2008)

dkoernert said:


> Derailing for a moment if I may. Can I ask what doesn't impress you about Topsiders? I am asking because I am in the same camp as you when it comes to that. I have had a few recent pairs fall apart on me rather quickly, particularly the eyelets on the sides have come out almost instantly. They used to be my go-to shoes in the summertime, but I've recently been hesitant to buy some new ones.


The "leather" is absolutely horrid and feels and looks like plastic. Plus I am not that thrilled with their sizing and the overall fit. The current Docksides are far better quality-wise but the fit isn't that good for my feet.

I have a pair from last summer that I wore maybe 5 or 6 times that I'm ready to just throw out. Compared to my previous pair of a few years ago, these are a massive disappointment.


----------



## nerdykarim (Dec 13, 2005)

I enjoy TE's polemic response because I respect his sense of style, but I wear LLB Blucher mocs all the time. My first pair (the original one--not LLB Signature) is about 6 years old and has red hiking laces and a Vibram ripple sole. Haters gonna hate, but I quite enjoy them...even in the summer.


----------



## Atterberg (Mar 11, 2012)

dparm said:


> I was thinking a bright solid like red or green would look sharp.


Depending on what you're wearing on top, a strong red, green or blue would look rather suave.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

nerdykarim said:


> I enjoy TE's polemic response because I respect his sense of style, but I wear LLB Blucher mocs all the time. My first pair (the original one--not LLB Signature) is about 6 years old and has red hiking laces and a Vibram ripple sole. Haters gonna hate, but I quite enjoy them...even in the summer.


My experience with Trip on this forum is that he doesn't make concessions for inferior products, nor does he give an item a pass for the sake of "tradition." His experience with the LLB Sig bluchers is not an isolated incident and their shortcomings have been well documented (here's my thread) but they have their staunch supporters nonetheless.

With regards to their suitability for summer wear, I don't see why not. The taslan laces are a bit autumnal for my tastes, but rawhide laces work well. I like to wear them with a "heavier" summer outfit (dark madras shirt, leather belt with nautical brass buckle, khaki or olive shorts).


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

No. I don't suffer garbage well. Sometimes I worry about the standards of my peers. I'm not a rich guy, but I care about where my limited resources are spent. Given all the great things I've learned from my years of participation here I've become less tolerant of sub-par offerings. Admittedly this is not a major hobby for some, but I think the operating assumption that we're all enthusiasts of one order or another is a reasonable one given the circumstance.

To me I'm seeing the same logic at work when people appraise an item (often rightly) as wholly unacceptable, but qualify that they would pick it up if it went down to $19. How does a lower price-point alter the value? I'm not talking about being in love with a Kiton seven-fold tie and hoping I find one on sale, I'm talking about something being garbage, but for the right price I'd buy it anyway. Or, to put it more poetically - I'd wear it under a sweater. 

My thinking is that people like the idea of a $70 camp moc. I agree that there's a gaping hole where once there was Bean. The historic examples of the Bean camp moc are mouth-watering and you can tell by the patina they acquired that they were a decent piece of merchandise to begin with. I'm saddened to hear of people's recent experience with Sperry as I've purchased a pair of Sahara colored AOs in the past 8 months and they've been stellar. But if there's a quality slide I suppose we can't call it unexpected. We've taught companies that instead of raising the price of a pair of shoes $15 to maintain a standard of quality we'd prefer they sell us shoe-shaped milk cartons with plastic laces. That's about what Bean's chucking in the mail these days. 

I truly can't accept that people's standards are that low, only that they've temporarily convinced themselves that they can manage and that, for whatever reason, the better more expensive option isn't worth it. Now I'm somewhere between a newb and Sartorial Sultan AlanC, but I can tell you that if I added up all the $40-80 increments in which I've wasted money on sub-par merchandise I could walk into Kiton and demand an eighth fold in my tie. 

So good luck with your shoes. I'll shut up now.


----------



## dparm (Nov 18, 2008)

I would love the Rancourts but at $200+ I can't really justify that right now. I had an LLB gift card and they had a sale.

I did snag a nice pair of Sebago Wharf "true tan" boat shoes at NR today for like $60 since I wasn't sure how useable the LLBs would be in the summer. What does the hivemind think?


----------



## leisureclass (Jan 31, 2011)

To the OP, Yes and Yes and Yes again. They pair great with just about everything, and really can seemingly do no wrong. I have old Eastlands that I wear all the time, year round.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

While I have not relied on LL Bean for my footwear, except for my Old Main Hunting Boots and the 3-Eyelet Oxford versions of same, the blucher mocs pictured in the OP are perfectly acceptable for summer wear. It appears he has worn them on at least a few occassions and found them to be acceptably comfortable, although the durability od same has yet to be determined. My advice to dparm, let your heart and more importantly, your feet be your guide!

PS: I too have not been very pleased with the declining quality of the last two pair of Topsiders I purchased. Perhaps that accounts for my conversion to Quoddy Trail and more recently, Rancourt? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Those look pretty good. Very similar to the AO Saharas I got. I wore the traditional Sperry's in brown/white for almost 20 years before experimenting and now I think the Sahara are the best. The leather does some very good aging for the price. 

As for the budget for Rancourts, here's a financial strategy (I usually charge for these, so cherish this):

1. Go to a craft fair and purchase a "swear jar"
2. Place the swear jar on your dresser and set a reasonable rate per cuss, say $1
3. Every time you put your LL Bean Signature Mocs that'll be one more dollar in the jar
4. By the end of the summer you'll be able to cash out and dial up Rancourt with your order


----------



## DoghouseReilly (Jul 25, 2010)

hardline_42 said:


> My experience with Trip on this forum is that he doesn't make concessions for inferior products, nor does he give an item a pass for the sake of "tradition."


Wigwam socks being a prime example. 



hardline_42 said:


> With regards to their suitability for summer wear, I don't see why not. The taslan laces are a bit autumnal for my tastes, but rawhide laces work well. I like to wear them with a "heavier" summer outfit (dark madras shirt, leather belt with nautical brass buckle, khaki or olive shorts).


To me, blucher mocs seem to be the perfect casual shoes. They're equally suitable for wear in any season; Wigwams or not. Boat shoe weather, for me, stops around when I need a something more than a windbreaker. I couldn't force myself to wear them with socks.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Trip can be wrong, and this is one of those times.

I love my LLB blucher moc's and wear them a ton, most recently during a weekend trip to Chicago. We walked a ton--at least six miles, I'd say, including four hours at the Shedd, which involves a lot of standing in addition to strolling. The Beans were the only shoe I brought and the only shoe I needed. While others may have different experiences because no two feet are alike, my feet were comfy the entire time. I just don't understand the aversion to Beans held by some.


----------



## ArtVandalay (Apr 29, 2010)

+1. I am a huge fan of my bean signatures. Wear them frequently. No complaints.


32rollandrock said:


> Trip can be wrong, and this is one of those times.
> 
> I love my LLB blucher moc's and wear them a ton, most recently during a weekend trip to Chicago. We walked a ton--at least six miles, I'd say, including four hours at the Shedd, which involves a lot of standing in addition to strolling. The Beans were the only shoe I brought and the only shoe I needed. While others may have different experiences because no two feet are alike, my feet were comfy the entire time. I just don't understand the aversion to Beans held by some.


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

I sent my sig bluchers back recently, rather than replace them I'm following Alan's lead and getting Rancourts.


Still, before they broke I was pleased with the the LLB sigs.
They were comfortable, I liked the sole, and the quality didn't strike me as terrible, sturdier than Eastlands, but a hair under the regular LLB blucher mocs.

The leather wasn't great obviously, but to me wasn't unwearabley bad. It was far better than the junk Bass uses. I'd put it on par with the stuff you find on colored Sperrys. 
They looked a plasticly when clean (of course so do my classic brown Sperry AOs), but mine were always dirty.

I guess it just took me a while to get my head around paying more than $50-60 for boat shoes or mocs.
I'm looking forward to my rancourts.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

(throws baseball mitt on the ground. stomps off)


----------



## DoghouseReilly (Jul 25, 2010)

32rollandrock said:


> Trip can be wrong, and this is one of those times.


Maybe you should put a link to this in your post signature, 32.


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

Trip English said:


> (throws baseball mitt on the ground. stomps off)




I agree with you here Trip, I wear my mocs at some point in the day for better than 3/4 of the year, to me that's justification enough to spend the extra $ on the Rancourts.
I was just trying to get the point across that my expectations for shoes like this used to be low, so the poor quality didn't bother me a much as it does now.

I'll also add, a few years ago I bought a pair of new Bean bluchers, and was horrified at how cheap and plasticy they looked compared to the old "good" doorstop sole pair. I even took a side by side comparison picture and posted it here.

Out of impatience I ended up wearing the new pair, after a few months they looked fine, after a year they looked so indistinguishable from the old pair (from the sole up) that I tossed the old pair. The leather is nice soft, and patinas well.

For whatever that's worth, my take away is that the new shoes might not be as terrible as we think, and the old ones not as perfect as we remember.


----------



## dparm (Nov 18, 2008)

I oiled mine up with some LL Bean beeswax and the texture/color has noticeably improved. They don't discolor from creasing now, and the color is a richer mahogany.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

I'm with Trip on this one.

The quality of Bean's current version notwithstanding, you can wear Bluchers year 'round.

As for the Sahara Topsider, I wish they'd make them with a traditional white sole.


----------



## Chi (Feb 15, 2009)

I LOVE my LL Bean Signature blucher mocs. I received so many compliments when I first go them that I ordered a second pair and put them in the closet for future use.

You can wear them year round. They are beautiful shoes.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Chi said:


> I LOVE my LL Bean Signature blucher mocs. I received so many compliments when I first go them that I ordered a second pair and put them in the closet for future use.


Ouch. You could've had a pair of Rancourts for that.


----------



## Atterberg (Mar 11, 2012)

If he's happy, he's happy!


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Atterberg said:


> If he's happy, he's happy!


I was happy with mine too, for about a year. After the death of my first pair, I decided to set my standards higher. My Rancourts make me happier than my Beans did, and I expect that they will continue to do so for many years.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Trip English said:


> Those are appropriate for wear in refuse bins of all types.


If however you put a $295.- price tag on them they're a winner! I own two pairs of Quoddy's, one has been re-crafted, and after purchasing a pair of the Bean Signature's last year, (on sale I might add) I have to say I prefer the Bean Signature pair.

Is the leather on the Bean pair as nice as the Quoddy's? No it's not. And the Bean pair's fit and finish are not quite at the level of the Quoddy's. But knowing that the Quoddy's cost me over three times the cost of of the Bean pair, they are a true bargain!

Trip, I've got to assume that you're fond of those little gems shown on your avatar right? Well, I feel quite certain that there are large cities and small towns all over the world where, if one was caught wearing those Belgian "fancy boy" slip-ons, a good old fashioned "Brooklyn beating" might ensue.

dparm, I'd be asking if they're appropriate to wear in the Winter. I thought they were made to be worn in the Spring, Summer, and Fall, but almost never in the Winter.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

127.72 MHz said:


> Is the leather on the Bean pair as nice as the Quoddy's? No it's not. And the Bean pair's fit and finish are not quite at the level of the Quoddy's. But knowing that the Quoddy's cost me over three times the cost of of the Bean pair, they are a true bargain!


And what will be the bargain in a few years' time, when the Quoddys are still kicking and the Beans have long since been trashed? Price is only one factor in determining what makes a good value. Making a purchase based on price alone is stupid.



127.72 MHz said:


> Trip, I've got to assume that you're fond of those little gems shown on your avatar right? Well, I feel quite certain that there are large cities and small towns all over the world where, if one was caught wearing those Belgian "fancy boy" slip-ons, a good old fashioned "Brooklyn beating" might ensue.


You obviously haven't been to Brooklyn in a while. Seriously, what the heck was the point of that?


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

You know hardline I have a pair of LL Bean moccasins that are about fifteen years old. They're beat. One pair of my Quoddy's, the pair that was re-crafted within the past year, is about five years old. Admittedly I wore them hard but the five year old Quoddys look about the same as my fifteen year old pair of Bean moccasins.

My point on this is that moccasins, to me, are for casual wear. Because I tend to wear them often and without regard for their well being I purchased more than one pair. Definitely a pair for kicking around in and a pair for wearing with Khakis or denim for events that are a bit more upscale. I spend my money judiciously taking into account the application of the article of clothing I'm purchasing.

And I'm in complete agreement with your comment: *Making a purchase based on price alone is stupid.* Except that I see it as "Stupid" to spend $250.- plus for a pair of moccasins that will be worn very hard and abused. Conversely I see it as "Bright" not to waste your money so one might feel good about having purchased "The best." (perhaps there's a complex that could be diagnosed)

In terms of my last comment. I was in Bensonhurst Brooklyn and nearby Bay Ridge last month. And although Bensonhurst is not what it was twenty years ago I believe my use of *lighthearted metaphor* is valid and measured when put in context with Trip's lighthearted response saying that the original poster's shoes would be appropriate to wear in a refuse bin.

So I have been to Brooklyn lately and the point of me making the comment was to respond with the same tone and tenor of a previous post. Seriously.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Mhz, I believe you when you say your fifteen-year-old Beans are still going strong. It's been documented in other threads that the quality of older LLB footwear is much better than current offerings. Based on my personal experience with them, I sincerely doubt that the newer Signature bluchers would last that long with normal wear. 

With regards to the price, the issue is not paying more for having "the best," it's paying more for having 15-year-old Bean quality in the current market. If you told me I could get the same shoes that Bean sold back then for $70 today, I'd be all over it and scoff at anyone who spent more. But they aren't the same shoes and, despite my attempts to convince myself otherwise, I'm not ok with current Bean quality at any price.

I would gladly spend upwards of $250 for a pair of boots that would be abused and worn hard, and that's just scratching the surface for what a pair of dress shoes would cost. Why should a pair of USA-made, all-leather, handsewn shoes (that happen to be casual) cost significantly less?


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Apples and oranges hardline. He*l, I've pulled the trigger on a $500.- pair of Wesco work boots, some of the best money I've spent.

As for the quality of Bean's current Signature series time will tell. I won't baby them.

I never made any assertion or comparison stating that a pair of USA-made, all-leather, hand sewn shoes (that happen to be casual) should cost significantly less than anything.

But if a pair of all leather, machine sewn, (made in heaven knows where) shoes are available and feel good on my feet, look good, (I've had several positive comments) and last for a few years it would be shortsighted to hold out for a two or three hundred dollar pair,...


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> My point on this is that moccasins, to me, are for casual wear. Because I tend to wear them often and without regard for their well being I purchased more than one pair. . . . Except that I see it as "Stupid" to spend $250.- plus for a pair of moccasins that will be worn very hard and abused. Conversely I see it as "Bright" not to waste your money so one might feel good about having purchased "The best." (perhaps there's a complex that could be diagnosed)


This is my viewpoint as well. I only wear my Bean bluchers during spring-summer weekends. They get worn at the lake, they get worn when I mow the lawn and do work outside, and they get worn (and drenched with water and shamppo) when I wash my dogs - they get absued, repeatedly soaked, and scraped up by twigs, branches and rocks; they get grass stained and grass clippings inside them when I mow the lawn and they have accumulated Labrador hair stuck inside stuck under the sock liner. I wear them without thought or regard for care -they are mere coverings for my feet. I have one pair of Bean bluchers that are about 13 years old (and still hanging on) and I have two pair of signatures - one I wear in rotation with the old pair, the other pair of signatures are in a box, waiting. These are disposable beaters for me - for $70, I wear the hell out of them and I'm prepared to trash them without regret when the time comes. If I spent $250 on a pair, I'd be far less likely to treat them that way and they would lose their utility to me - I already have decent shoes; the bluchers are specifically for weekend abuse.

The Rancourts look awesome - really nice. I can tell from the pictures that the leather is great quality and they DO look much better than the Beans. But, for my purposes, it would be stupid to spend $250 for a pair, or anywhere close to it.

If I can buy three pairs of "crap" shoes that each take hard wearing for a decade and a half for less than 1 pair of Rancourts - then, for the price differential, I won't live long enough to justify the cost of a pair of Rancourts (i.e., I'll be dead in 45 years and before I wear through 3 pairs of beans). Further, if the Signatures do, for some reason, give out before I think they should have, I'll return them to Bean. I'm pretty confident, for my puposes, I've made the rational economic choice.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I only agree with the 3 for the price of 1 rationale when the 3 are at least comfortable for day to day use. I'm in no way against cheap footwear. Unless Sperry fusses too much with the Topsider I'll never for one of the many $200-$300 pairs of boat shoes out there. The issue that I have is that the Signature Mocs are literally horrible to wear. They have a plastic feeling that I've never experienced in other shoes of any price. It's like someone melted Mr. Potato Head lips and ears and formed them into shoe shapes. I've considered trying the regular Bean moc as the leather feels closer to what Sperry uses. 

From my own perspective the Rancourts are half luxury and half last resort. If they weren't so appealing on their own I wouldn't actually consider them as an alternative. It's sort of the same story with Penny loafers. At the time I was doing my shopping for a good pair there was nothing but brush-off stuff in the $200 range in the right shape. Had Rancourt been released (maybe it was and I didn't know about it) or had Bass released some of the better finished versions they currently offered I may not have sprung for Brooks cordovan LHS.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Also - how embarrassing would it be to get your ass beat by a guy in Belgian shoes?


----------



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

Trip English said:


> Also - how embarrassing would it be to get your ass beat by a guy in Belgian shoes?


There's a fair number of former millionaires you could ask...


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Just to chime in, I've really been enjoying my Rancourts. I truly was at the bottom rung with my Bass blucher mocs. I never had Bean blucher mocs at any point. I will say that I can't imagine that anyone who springs for the Rancourts would ever be disappointed with them. Consider the price long term disappointment insurance.


----------



## Chi (Feb 15, 2009)

Topsider said:


> Ouch. You could've had a pair of Rancourts for that.


Ouch. I guess you missed the part where I said I love my Bean bluchers.

The level of snobbery on here is truly amazing.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Chi said:


> Ouch. I guess you missed the part where I said I love my Bean bluchers.
> 
> The level of snobbery on here is truly amazing.


I have a pair of Bean bluchers already. The fact that I think they suck doesn't make me a snob. It just means I have standards that exceed those of the buyers at L. L. Bean nowadays, which isn't saying much.


----------



## Chi (Feb 15, 2009)

Edit - I suspect there is no reason to discuss this topic with snobs.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Chi, I'm glad you like your Bean mocs. But quite a few of us have actually purchased, worn, and been disappointed by them. I personally have judged them unusually sub-par for their price range and well behind Camp-sides, topsiders, and other shoes in the $70-80 price range. Being so in love that you stock up on extras is admittedly baffling to me.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Chi said:


> Edit - I suspect there is no reason to discuss this topic with snobs.


Don't let them get you down Chi. (you were kind referring to them as snobs) Others (of us) have purchased new pairs of the Bean signature line and find them to be great shoes given their price. (I picked mine up on sale last year for under $70.- so no, he could *not* nearly have had a pair of Raincourts for the price of two pairs of Bean's signature line)

Although AAAC is a great place to find like minded gentleman who enjoy clothing and sharring their experiences I believe there's also a group who believe that paying more buys them status,.... They've started threads impying that anyone who takes price into consideration is purchasing on price alone which, ironically, is exactly what many of them are doing. (in my opinion) Except they're able to feel better about themselves by being ripped.

My Bean signature mocs rate surprisingly well aganist my two pairs of $250.- Quoddy's. I like my Quoddy's but I won't wear them knowing I may be involved in an activity that might ruin them. A Physician I work with who has been wearing Sperry's for years recently tried on my Quoddy's and my fairly new Bean mocs and he ended up purchasing the Beans. He loves them but I'm sure that means he's just not able to set his sights higher and lacks taste!:biggrin2:


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

The correlation between quality and price is not always a constant, but it's often the case that better made goods cost more. That being said, most of us have compared the shoes in question to other models in the exact same price range as well as higher priced models like Rancourt. If we're not here to learn and raise our standards, then why _are_ we here?


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ And many other of us have also campaired the shoes in question to other models and have come to the conculsion that although the higher priced models are indeed superior the lower priced models are also good value.

Seems as though at least some of the "we" you speak of are also here to make sporting fun of those who are unwilling or unable to buy into the higher standards you speak of,...


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

As has been repeated a few times - I agree. Other models in the same price range, including Eastland & Sebago are much better than the LLB Sigs. You don't need to move all the way up to Rancourt or Quoddy to escape the plast-eather material of the Sigs. Some simply related the story that they _had_ done so.

There's no reason to be overly sensitive. We're talking about camp mocs.


----------



## EastVillageTrad (May 12, 2006)

I agree that they are fine for wear year round.

But that said, I reserve my blucher mocs and ranger mocs from LLB for fall and winter wear myself.

I save the summer for the boat shoes.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Trip English;1287818
There's no reason to be overly sensitive. We're talking about camp mocs.[/QUOTE said:


> To say there's no reason to be overly sensitive is to imply that I am sensitive.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

If I overestimated your sensitivity I apologize. I read an intention in your posts and that was probably my error.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

127.72 MHz said:


> To say there's no reason to be overly sensitive is to imply that I am sensitive.


To imply that anyone who would spend more than what you would spend on a pair of shoes is a snob who buys expensive things for the sake of superiority, despite ample justification due to prior experiences, strikes me as being overly sensitive.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

127.72 MHz said:


> I believe there's also a group who believe that paying more buys them status


Riiiiiiight. Because, y'know, everyone can tell the difference between a $200 pair of shoes and a $70 pair of shoes.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Well I think it's also fair to say that the lot of you have made at least one member feel as though you're snobs,....

Not my words, so if you feel at all bad about it perhaps you should address the member you made feel that way.

The three of you may be able to run others off or make them feel bad but it won't work with me. 

hardline: I could care less how it strikes you. I made no such implication. Look back though the thread, it wasn't me who made Chi feel as though you were snobs. (and for the record I agree with him and others who have sent me private messages about your behavior!)

The three of you should see the messages and an e-mail I've received about your behavior. I'd say shame on you but it's apparent that you have no shame.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

127.72 MHz said:


> Well I think it's also fair to say that the lot of you have made at least one member feel as though you're snobs.


How Chi feels, frankly, is Chi's problem. If he can't handle a difference of opinion regarding a pair of shoes on an Internet message board, then he has bigger problems than any of us are going to be able to solve here.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ Yes indeed and and how you feel is your problem too.

*You're *the one who said that he could have had a pair of Raincourt mocs for the price of two pair of Bean signature mocs.

Here's the $69.- Bean signature, (at full price)

And here's the $210.- Raincourt mocs.

So it is possible that Chi does have a problem, it's also a fact that you have a problem with basic arithmetic Topsider.

And what problem(s) do the other three members who've sent me messages or e-mails about the your snobbery?


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

127.72 MHz said:


> It's possible that Chi does have a problem, but it's a fact that you have a problem with basic arithmetic Topsider.


I recalled Bean's bluchers being priced closer to $100, and didn't look up the price before I posted.



> And what problem(s) do the other three members who've sent me messages or e-mails about the your snobbery?


With all due respect, this is an Internet message board about clothing. I honestly couldn't care less about any "drama" amongst the membership here, or who thinks what about whom. Including me.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ Nuff said.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

127.72 MHz said:


> hardline: I could care less how it strikes you. I made no such implication. Look back though the thread, it wasn't me who made Chi feel as though you were snobs. (and for the record I agree with him and others who have sent me private messages about your behavior!)


It certainly wasn't my intention, and I didn't reply to his comment about loving them. I'm glad he does. If you look back through any other threads regarding the LLB Sig bluchers, I've never done more than offer my personal experience with them. I've continued to say that they're good-looking shoes and wish those who are happy with them well. As for PM's regarding my behavior, that's between the two of you. I don't think I'm a particularly antagonistic poster.



127.72 MHz said:


> The three of you should see the messages and an e-mail I've received about your behavior. I'd say shame on you but it's apparent that you have no shame.


I can't see how my supposed shamelessness is apparent. But then again, this is the internet and I suppose you're free to generalize as much as you like. I'm actually a pretty nice guy with a desk job, a wife and a young son. I also happen to have owned the LLB bluchers, which developed a hole between the top plug and vamp after having worn them in a normal fashion for about a year. I kept getting pebbles, dirt and debris in my shoes and I didn't like it, so I got better shoes. I don't think that makes me a snob.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I was perfectly willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but the fact that you've dragged this thread into another full page with bickering is a little over the top. If you (or those that report to you privately) feel bad about other people buying expensive things I don't know what to tell you. The world's full of variety. Products, tastes, etc. Al anyone's done is voice their opinions. It's not my responsibility, nor those of the other members, to baby anyone along and pepper our posts with smiley faces so that no one feels bad. Neither Topsider nor Hardline (nor myself) were out of line and all have well established credentials here.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

"Those who report to me privately," "Bickering?" and "Established credentials." eh? Established on an anonymous web site. A few fellows shot me messages saying they felt insulted and wondered what kind of guy, (speaking of you Trip) you are,.....

I have gone on another page,....Because you guys ran the others off. You're a funny guy.

You begin the thread by telling the poor sap that his shoes would be great to wear in a refuse bin. Then you're willing to talk about your "established credentials." One point we agree on Trip, especially in this thread, you have definitely established some credentials alright.

But I'm sure in your realm telling someone you've never met that their shoes would be great to wear in a refuse bin isn't over the top right? (it's rhetorical Trip your actions have spoken much louder that your self serving bologna.)

What would have been wrong with telling the guys that for sixty nine bucks the Bean shoes will work fine? (again given that they are under seventy bucks a pop) We could have brought him along letting him know that if he could ever see his way clear to afford a more expensive pair, knowing that it may go over $200.-, he might really like them. Keep in mind that there are those who frequent AAAC that don't have the means to ever afford some Rancourt mocs, ever. Insulting him like you did is just plain wrong.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

You have lost your marbles. 

Why would I tell him his shoes were good if I didn't believe it? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of seeking advice? I recall another infamous poster who made it a point to call anyone with a little bit of taste a snob and repeated ad nauseum that lower-end poorly made stuff was just fine and not everyone needed the best of the best. 

Well you know what? Log the hell off like he did (or was he struck with the ban hammer?)

If you don't care what you wear, where it's made, how it looks, how it feels, or any other bit of data then why are you sitting here getting upset on a men's clothing forum?

As for anonymity I don't see your face anywhere on this forum. If I've missed it, please point it out. Want to see mine? Go to the thread at the top of the page and click it. I'm on there head to toe every couple of pages participating, as I have done for years, out in the open. Most of the established posters know my real name, place of employment, and a few have even met me. You appear to be the anonymous one. 

I'll leave you the last word. Guys like you need it.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Misquotes and conjecture. I *never* said to say the shoes look good when they don't. *You did.*

I said: What would have been wrong with telling the guys that for sixty nine bucks the Bean shoes will work fine? And I repeat, what would have been wrong with being a nice guy? The Bean mocs look very similar to a pair of Rancourts, they're not near as nice, but the original poster sure did seem to be proud of them posting his picture of his brand new shoes.

But don't let the facts get in your way,...

I didn't say I didn't care what I wore. *You did.* I spend far more than I am willing to admit every year on clothing. Upset? Me? Please, I've been dealing with sick and dying people everyday for the past twenty plus years, it's going to take much more then the likes of you to upset me Trip.

My face on this forum. I used to sign off with my name pal. But again, don't let that stop with with a good rant. As for who I know and the friends I have made here, they include several whom I speak to on the phone. (Ask TweedyDon, 32RockandRoll, and a few others.) So you don't have the market cornered.

*And I notice that you completely side step the issue of you telling someone that their shoes would be fine to be worn in a refuse bin,.... But you couldn't bring yourself to admit that you could have been rude, let alone wrong.*

The fellow you ran off wasn't "Struck with the ban hammer." What in the world could the poor guy have been banned for? (being abused by guys like you?)

There was no call to tell the guy his shoes were to be worn in a refuse bin, period. (hardline jumping in to defend you was just as bad.) If you don't see that nothing I can say will change your mind.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Random thoughts

On the OP's actual question: of course they're appopriate in the summer. If anything, I'd say they're _more_ appropriate as summer footwear than in any other season (though they're fine in the other seasons too).

More controversial grist for the mill:

The notion that there's some old-fashioned quality to original Topsiders is, in my opinion, ill-informed. Sperry's original Topsiders were pretty poor quality when they were at the height of their popularity in the '80s. It seems that people bought them because they were iconic, and because they were afraid that wearing a different brand would make them look phony. At the time, alternate-brand variants (esp. Timberland) were markedly better at lower prices. In my opinion, anyway: having worn various shoes actually _in_ the '80s, which most people here weren't in a position to do at the time, though some obviously were.

While it would be foolish to consider nothing other than price in making buying decisions, it's equally (pretty much exactly equally) foolish _not_ to consider price. You need to consider both what you're buying and what it costs, and weigh the two against each other (considering, among other things, how much money you have, what other things you're interested in spending it on, what you're going to do with the thing you buy, and what your own peculiar tastes are). Exactly where the balance lies depends entirely on the preferences of the buyer and, in most cases, others aren't really in a position to tell him, definitively, what the better way to go is. It's all a matter of opinion.

Some people here have what - it seems to me - is a somewhat exalted view of the general reliability of their own opinions.


----------



## Dingus (Mar 2, 2012)

*Don't be Trippin'*

Trip,

I agree with Mr. Mhz. The original question was "can I wear these in the summer?" it was explicitly stated that the OP already owned and loved the shoes. He was not asking for opinions of the shoes as a possible purchase or the business philosophy of LL Bean. If a friend came up to you and asked, "does this belt go with my favorite suit?" I would hope your answer would not be "I wouldn't be buried in that suit" even if it was lime-green polyester. That's not a matter of honesty/dishonesty or capital T Truth, it is common decency and respect. Answer the question directly or let your silence do the talking.

Dingus


----------



## Redsrover (Mar 23, 2009)

I just wish Ebay would return a nice pair of vintage LLB Bluchers in my size. My Signature line pair are holding up fine, but I just don't love that darker leather color like I do the lighter, peanut-butter smooth grain of my long lost pair from the early 80's....


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Trip English said:


> No. I don't suffer garbage well. Sometimes I worry about the standards of my peers. I'm not a rich guy, but I care about where my limited resources are spent. Given all the great things I've learned from my years of participation here I've become less tolerant of sub-par offerings. Admittedly this is not a major hobby for some, but I think the operating assumption that we're all enthusiasts of one order or another is a reasonable one given the circumstance.
> 
> To me I'm seeing the same logic at work when people appraise an item (often rightly) as wholly unacceptable, but qualify that they would pick it up if it went down to $19. How does a lower price-point alter the value? I'm not talking about being in love with a Kiton seven-fold tie and hoping I find one on sale, I'm talking about something being garbage, but for the right price I'd buy it anyway. Or, to put it more poetically - I'd wear it under a sweater.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your favorable mention of the Sahara AOs, Trip. Now I know how to make use of a gift card for Nordstrom that was given to me last Christmas.


----------



## Chi (Feb 15, 2009)

Glad to see I am not the only one here that thinks Trip is off. (I am being kind with that description).

I have learned that there are members on here whose sense of style could not be more different from mine. I will do my best to ignore them.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

If there's something you'd like to say I'm perfectly happy to hear it. I think the board blanks out cuss words for you if that's a concern. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

dear sweet lord


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Are you just looking at this thread for the first time? It's been awesome. It's like a little window opened up and some of styleforum.net crept in. I never want it to end.


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

I'm just going to say that I'll be happy when the current argumentative cycle around here goes away. it's boom and bust in these part when it comes to name callin'


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

Was that what the smell was? 



Brio1 said:


> Thanks for your favorable mention of the Sahara AOs, Trip. Now I know how to make use of a gift card for Nordstrom that was given to me last Christmas.


Try not to max it out on Saraha A/O's. Their ubiquitous nature leads them to DSW and other off-price retailers on a regular basis. I've acquired several pair over the last few years for less than $40 each. I think only the Defender is more commonly found in such stores.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I'll resolve to be nicer :icon_saint7kg: and to put way more emoticons in my posts.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Taken Aback said:


> Was that what the smell was?
> 
> Try not to max it out on Saraha A/O's. Their ubiquitous nature leads them to DSW and other off-price retailers on a regular basis. I've acquired several pair over the last few years for less than $40 each. I think only the Defender is more commonly found in such stores.


Sometimes we suffer here from too much male testosterone and cheap beer. :drunken_smilie:

Thanks for the tip. I will check out DSW.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Brio1 said:


> Thanks for your favorable mention of the Sahara AOs, Trip. Now I know how to make use of a gift card for Nordstrom that was given to me last Christmas.


In order to preserve my "everyman" status and not be considered a snob, I have to throw in a suggestion here for Timberland's classic 2-eye boat shoe in earthy brown as a better option than the Sperry sahara AO.

I've tried to like Sperrys, I really have. But the Timberlands are better constructed, higher quality shoes for a similar price. Padded tongue, more arch support, soft, hard-wearing leather, no annoying seams in the wrong places, razor-siped, welted soles and no break-in required IME. I've got three pairs and my oldest pair gets used for everything from actual boating to fly fishing in warm shallows to mowing the lawn. I wouldn't trade them for anything (except maybe some Rancourts :tongue2. They can be had for $40 or less at the outlets during their sales. My cheapest pair came in at $36.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

$36??? Well if it isn't Diamond Jim Brady. The nerve. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

hardline_42 said:


> In order to preserve my "everyman" status and not be considered a snob, I have to throw in a suggestion here for Timberland's classic 2-eye boat shoe in earthy brown as a better option than the Sperry sahara AO.
> 
> I've tried to like Sperrys, I really have. But the Timberlands are better constructed, higher quality shoes for a similar price. Padded tongue, more arch support, soft, hard-wearing leather, no annoying seams in the wrong places, razor-siped, welted soles and no break-in required IME. I've got three pairs and my oldest pair gets used for everything from actual boating to fly fishing in warm shallows to mowing the lawn. I wouldn't trade them for anything (except maybe some Rancourts :tongue2. They can be had for $40 or less at the outlets during their sales. My cheapest pair came in at $36.


+1

I wore Sperry's for years before I realized it's not about the name on the shoe. My father has had one pair of https://shop.timberland.com/product/index.jsp?productId=4064137 for twice as long as it took me to wear out three pairs of AO's, and they look better than ever and show no signs of giving up any time soon. He wears them for mowing the lawn, loafing about town, and boating. As he's now retired, they are worn 3-5 days/week.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Trip English said:


> $36??? Well if it isn't Diamond Jim Brady. The nerve. :icon_smile_big:


Feel free to ignore me if my style doesn't match yours. I'd hate to disturb your chi.

(see what I did there?)


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Tilton said:


> +1
> 
> I wore Sperry's for years before I realized it's not about the name on the shoe. My father has had one pair of https://shop.timberland.com/product/index.jsp?productId=4064137 for twice as long as it took me to wear out three pairs of AO's, and they look better than ever and show no signs of giving up any time soon. He wears them for mowing the lawn, loafing about town, and boating. As he's now retired, they are worn 3-5 days/week.


I have that same pair in root beer with the gum sole and the colorway is such that I can wear it all the way through the fall and even a mild winter (hey, wasn't there a thread about this somewhere?). The Timberlands are more "shoe-like" than Sperrys and their clones, but in a really good way.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

I can't argue. I had a pair in Earthy Wheat with white soles that was one of my most favorite boat shoes I ever owned. The leather had a buttery soft texture that felt great.

If you're after a deal on those, as hardline_42 got, the one place that I know they can be had cheaply is at Burlington Coat Factory. It's really the sole reason to step into the place now short of a deal on a pea coat. Otherwise, an ocassional email coupon can make the Timberland outlet price better.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

hardline_42 said:


> I've tried to like Sperrys, I really have. But the Timberlands are better constructed, higher quality shoes for a similar price.


Agreed. I have an old pair of Timberland boats similar to the ones shown below that I've had since the early 1990's, still going strong.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Topsider said:


> Agreed. I have an old pair of Timberland boats similar to the ones shown below that I've had since the early 1990's, still going strong.


*Topsider*, you prefer _Timberlands_? My mind is blown.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

hardline_42 said:


> *Topsider*, you prefer _Timberlands_? My mind is blown.


Not "prefer," necessarily, but the quality is notably better, particularly the leather itself. That's one area where Sperry has traditionally fallen short, except with certain colors (e.g., Sahara, Amaretto).


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

Topsider said:


> That's one area where Sperry has traditionally fallen short, except with certain colors (e.g., Sahara, Amaretto).


That's their saving grace for me. While it can get out of hand with the atrocities committed in their name by BoO, Sperry is at the top with style and color variety among the main boat shoe brands. Sebago holds back quite a bit in comparison, and Timberland even more so. Of course it's an aspect not worth considering when sticking to the standards.


----------



## dparm (Nov 18, 2008)

I managed to sell my two-week old Top Siders for $47 on eBay. Thank God they're gone. The LLB and Sebagos are much nicer.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Chi said:


> Glad to see I am not the only one here that thinks Trip is off. (I am being kind with that description).
> 
> I have learned that there are members on here whose sense of style could not be more different from mine. I will do my best to ignore them.


No, you're not alone, far from it.

It was simply too much to expect an apology. Mocking childish jokes are close as you'll get.

There's quite a few members, what you've experienced is a vocal minority. The key is not to leave, then they have the place to themselves.

Your shoes were a good deal for the money.

Best regards,


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

*groan*


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

My thoughts exactly.

But you were not groaning when the poor fellow who started this thread was being told his shoes belonged in a refuse bin, were you?

And after things died down, then Trip went at the poor fellow again, you didn't groan.

Is it cool to insult people for no good reason than sophomoric humor? As someone else said either you're okay with it or you're not.

I'm on the side of not making fun of an honest question and being a decent guy. Where do you stand?


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Taken Aback said:


> That's their saving grace for me. While it can get out of hand with the atrocities committed in their name by BoO, Sperry is at the top with style and color variety among the main boat shoe brands. Sebago holds back quite a bit in comparison, and Timberland even more so. Of course it's an aspect not worth considering when sticking to the standards.


They all have their pros and cons, IMO. The insole in my Timberlands takes forever to dry out compared to the Sperrys or Sebagos. I wouldn't want to wear a boat shoe with a brown sole on the actual deck of a boat, either. They're strictly street shoes. Docksides are stiff as boards when new, and take quite a while to break in compared to Topsiders. I've always found Topsiders comfortable right out of the box, and they're cheap and disposable enough that I don't mind getting them wet, sandy, muddy, or whatever. Just hose 'em off, and set 'em in the sun to dry. The leather may not be high-quality, but they get better looking with age and salt staining.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

hardline_42 said:


> In order to preserve my "everyman" status and not be considered a snob, I have to throw in a suggestion here for Timberland's classic 2-eye boat shoe in earthy brown as a better option than the Sperry sahara AO.
> 
> I've tried to like Sperrys, I really have. But the Timberlands are better constructed, higher quality shoes for a similar price. Padded tongue, more arch support, soft, hard-wearing leather, no annoying seams in the wrong places, razor-siped, welted soles and no break-in required IME. I've got three pairs and my oldest pair gets used for everything from actual boating to fly fishing in warm shallows to mowing the lawn. I wouldn't trade them for anything (except maybe some Rancourts :tongue2. They can be had for $40 or less at the outlets during their sales. My cheapest pair came in at $36.


Thanks. Do you happen to know when they will offer them on sale again?


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Holy post-edit.



127.72 MHz said:


> My thoughts exactly.
> 
> But you were not groaning when the poor fellow who started this thread was being told his shoes belonged in a refuse bin, were you?
> 
> ...


On re-reading this thread, Trip's comments could easily be interpreted as offensive if they weren't so obviously said in jest. At least, it was obvious to me but the tone of his post might not be understood by everyone. But dparm let it roll off his back (as far as I can tell) and the thread continued. I think he gets that strong opinions will be expressed with regards to clothing items and most of it is hyperbole with a little bit of fact thrown in to keep a discussion going, but they are NOT meant as insults.

My groaning is at the reaction of some members who continue to drag this out and are demanding apologies as if someone had insulted a family member, not a shoe. This is a clothing forum. Like any other forum where opinions are shared publicly, people will disagree. But it's CLOTHES. Is it really worth getting all bent out of shape over?


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

^ +1.

Insulting a shoe isn't the same thing as insulting a person.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

Brio1 said:


> Thanks. Do you happen to know when they will offer them on sale again?


You just missed a 20% off promo, but another will come eventually (They _have_ gone up to 40%. Combined with a sale, it can be hard to beat).

Sign up to their mailing list and/or check this regularly: https://slickdeals.net/newsearch.php#q=timberland&titleonly=1


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Topsider said:


> The insole in my Timberlands takes forever to dry out compared to the Sperrys or Sebagos.


I've never experienced this. Do yours have cloth insoles? Mine are leather(ish) and don't absorb much water, if any.



Brio1 said:


> Thanks. Do you happen to know when they will offer them on sale again?


Last year they had a 30% off + a 30% coupon sale towards the end of July. The end of the season always sees the lowest prices at the risk of reduced selection. I have an outlet about 2 miles from my office so I can go during the week and beat the crowds. They even let me go through each pair in my size and pick out the best left and right shoes to make a matched pair! :smile:


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

hardline_42 said:


> I've never experienced this. Do yours have cloth insoles?


They're partially cloth. Mine are an older pair (ca. early 1990's), so I'm sure they've changed them...as well they should have.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

The ones I've always wanted to try are the ones with the big lugg soles. There's something so Frankensteinian about them and I'd imagine they'd be comfortable to wear around the city, which continues to be the biggest problem confronting my shoe collection. I hate resorting to sneakers, but I don't want to spend money on some ridiculous looking rubber soled loafer (at least none that I've seen so far). I can imagine eating up the city blocks in those Timberland monsters.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

As for the pall cast over this thread, I'll quote from the wisdom of The Family Guy:

[Peter makes a joke during a Christmas play]​_Spectator #1: Oh my god. I'm so offended. I'm going to do something about this.
Spectator #2: Mike, there's not really anything you can do.
Spectator #1: Wow, you're right. I guess I'm just going to have to develop a sense of humor.
​_
I can't recall ever meaning any offense to anyone on these boards, and really still don't. On the other hand, though, I have made it a firm policy not to apologize to people who can't take a joke or are overly sensitive in other ways. It's not my job to teach you how to let sarcasm and differences of opinion roll off your back. The internet is a scary place if you skin is thin enough to be mad about the way someone feels about shoes and the sarcastic way in which he expresses it. Please enjoy a drink (or a smoke, or whatever you do to relax) and put this thread from your mind. Any comments I make on here from this post on out will be squarely about boat shoes, camp mocs, and other modestly priced casual footwear. ​


----------



## ArtVandalay (Apr 29, 2010)

I've kept up with this entire thread, I wore my Bean mocs today, and I still somehow love both the mocs AND Trip. 
Again, they're just clothes.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Trip English said:


> The ones I've always wanted to try are the ones with the big lugg soles. There's something so Frankensteinian about them and I'd imagine they'd be comfortable to wear around the city, which continues to be the biggest problem confronting my shoe collection. I hate resorting to sneakers, but I don't want to spend money on some ridiculous looking rubber soled loafer (at least none that I've seen so far). I can imagine eating up the city blocks in those Timberland monsters.


I have a pair. They're definitely monsters. Padded collar, 3 brass eyelets, functional 360 lacing, leather lined (in an unattractive shade of orange) and 360 welted with that beast of a lugged sole. I find them to be a bit uncomfortable in the heel. It's nothing an insole wouldn't fix, but it doesn't bother me enough to try one.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

I wore mine yesterday, and was met with massive indifference.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Brio1 said:


> Sometimes we suffer here from too much male testosterone and cheap beer. :drunken_smilie:
> .......


+1 and might I add, so well and elegantly put!


----------

