# NOS Wright shoes arrived



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

First, I'd like to thank Cardinals5 for mentioning these (and I also see he has a new avatar - the Cardinals are flying around in my backyard again this year).

The shoes arrived last evening. They are E.T. Wright model Cordwainer Wright shoes in a size 9.5C. The Wright claim to fame is their Arch Preserver arch support. I have never heard of or tried on a pair of Wright shoes prior to this, and the Arch Preserver bump is certainly unique feeling. There is a bump right in the middle of the ball of your foot. When I first put the shoes on it felt like a big wad of sock was stuck under my middle toe, and while not uncomfortable, did feel strange. After a few minutes I could no longer notice the bump and the shoes were in fact very comfortable. Here they are right out of the box. They were never even laced up or tried on prior to me receiving them. VERY COOL!!!

The first thing I noticed is that the leather is extremely smooth. There is not a hint of grain, which leads me to believe they are made from the most corrected-grain calfskin I have ever seen.




The welt stitching on the sole is very neat, but instead of a groove cut like Allen Edmonds for example, it is almost like a bunch of diamond cuts are made either from the sewing needle, or some other strange method I have never seen before. Also, on several portions the cuts are not very deep and the stitching is even with the bottom of the sole. The soles appear to have been polished, and the proud stitching is very flat where the polishing smoothed it out.



I tried to show it in this close-up, but I am not sure if you can see. On the right section are the diamond notches for the stitching, and on the left is a section of the polished-down thread.


Finally, and this is the odd part, I wore the shoes for a little while this morning. I was just walking around on carpet and while I did try to flex the toe area as I walked, I wasn't being too extreme since I want to apply some more leather conditioner to be sure nothing cracks. The leather still seems soft, but I don't want to take any chances.
If you look at the toe crease, there isn't really any crease forming. Also, as I wore the shoes, when they flexed the leather stayed very smooth. In fact, the leather seemed to act exactly like the shell Cordovan on my AE MacNeils. Is it possible these shoes are Cordovan? I found several examples of Wright Cordovan shoes online, but the soles were marked as Cordovan, these soles have no such markings.


Is there a leather conditioner I can use that would be okay for either calfskin or Cordovan until I figure out what this is? I am leaning towards calfskin, but I don't know if calfskin conditioner will harm Cordovan.

Overall, I think the shoes look great and have an excellent fit (once I got used to the Arch Preserver bump). If they are extremely smooth corrected leather, then they were a decent purchase for $61. If by some chance they are Cordovan, well then they would be an excellent purchase for $61. 

I will certainly post more photos once I wear them and see what happens to the leather creases.

Andy B.


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

Hey Andy - boy those sure look like shell to me, but we'll have to await further testimony from you. I'd be very surprised to find that Wright spent that much time and effort on the soles only to use corrected grain leather, but stranger things have happened. Even with your minimal walking, I would assume that corrected grain would have already show some creasing.

This will sound a bit odd, but try smelling the shoes near the vamp - shell has a distinctive smell that's unlike anything associated with calf.

As for conditioning, Nick Horween once said somewhere on the board that minor amounts of Lexol Conditioner on shell won't damage it on the long run and will actually help soften it some.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

How old does NOS Wright need to be, to be of quality? Also, do you know who the manufacturer of these were?

Also, speaking of _today's_ E. T Wright, I see they are going out of business (have been for a while?) and wonder if _anything_ they currently stock is worth consideration at the current prices and discounts. From what I've read, the pairs originating from Italy and Spain are from Magnanni, and the English, from Sanders. I've not owned any (to my knowledge) from either, and can't judge. However, at $30-$50 they seem tempting.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

I'm certainly no expert on Wright shoes, I only picked them up because they were my size and looked nice. From searching online it seems as though they were manufactured in the US at Wright's old factory in New England (Massachusetts I believe). I think the MA site closed in the early 1980s. The leather insole is stamped "MADISON Union Made". There are no other "Made In xxx" markings. The lining is marked 9 1/2C 325021A 7 112.

I emailed the seller and he said as far as he knows they are some special type of calfskin. He said the Cordovan shoes were definitely marked as such. I guess I'll see what happens as I wear them. I like them.

Andy B.


----------



## upnorth (Jun 18, 2007)

I would not be surprised that the leather used during those era is even better than many $600 shoes today.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

I hope you'll have many wonderful years wearing those shoes.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

I think that bump under the ball of the foot is called a metatarsal pad. Some over-the-counter arch support inserts have one, as well.


----------



## TheWGP (Jan 15, 2010)

I had much the same experience with some ET Wright shells I got recently - that "arch preserver" thing is weird, but you get used to it very quickly. Those shoes sure do look nice! It's a shame there isn't more information about them available.


----------



## WillisGeigerFan (Apr 24, 2007)

They're beautiful. Enjoy.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Lovely shoes. Enjoy them in good health!


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

Wright made wonderful shoes until at least 1972 (when I got married in a pair). My father (13AA/AAAA) wore nothing else from the '30s until he died in '94. So, of course, I wore them as well from the time I reached my adult size as a high school junior (a much more normal 12A/AAA) until my wife convinced me to try Italian shoes. When I moved to Philly in 1968, I could go into Sherman Brothers and find several pairs in stock in my size.

The "arch preserver" was exactly that, and as far as I know, the metatarsal pad had nothing to do with it. For reasons not at all clear to me, the mothers and grandmothers of my generation were quite concerned about falling arches, and Wright shoes were known for "preventing" this. Of course, they also kept elephants away quite effectively and we actually never saw one in our neighborhood.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

bluesman said:


> The "arch preserver" was exactly that, and as far as I know, the metatarsal pad had nothing to do with it.


Yes, I think the metat. pad is not for fallen arches but for a separate issue, namely problems that can be caused by the toe bones pressing against one another too hard, esp between toes 3 and 4. The pad "lifts and separates" (as an ad slogan said in another context). I have a personal interest in this topic.


----------



## jwlester (Oct 20, 2009)

I did a search and haven't come up with anything. Was this a one time find on the bay or did someone find a stock pile of NOS items? These look like great shoes. I love finding old stuff laying around on a shelf somewhere. Talk about conserving and recycling.

Josh


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

Josh,

Search for Cordwainer Wright or Wright Arch Preserver. There seems to be a few for auction most of the time.

Kurt,

As for "lifts and separates", wasn't that part of an ad for woman's undergarments? Not that I mind having a pair of shoes that from now on will make me think of a young lady's bosom whenever I wear them. 

Andy B.


----------



## jwlester (Oct 20, 2009)

Thanks andy. They look like wonderful shoes. I have quite high arches as well, so maybe these will be true to their name.

Cheers, Josh


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

At least the 80's for NOS. I can see why it was threadworthy. 

I assume the lack of response on Wright's current selection is meant to be telling unto itself. I see why they are going under.


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

Sorry, but those are just nasty. Hideous, really. Never wear them. In fact, get rid of them immediately. I'll gladly take them and, er, dispose of them properly. (No need to thank me; just send them to me ASAP.)


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

Andy B. - any conclusion as to whether the Wright's are shell?


----------



## jht3 (Jul 8, 2009)

My father only wore Wright's, and I inherited a couple pairs when he died in '98 that I still wear to this day. Both a blucher's; the black plain toe pair in a 13.5AA and the other is a brown pebble grain in 14AAA. If they were still available it would be all I'd buy

Good looking shoes and a great score


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

Cardinals5 said:


> Andy B. - any conclusion as to whether the Wright's are shell?


I've worn them three days so far and they are just getting a very slight wrinkle in the vamp crease by my little toes. It looks different from my shell AE MacNeils, so I'd say they are probably calf. It won't show up in a photo, so I'll just have to keep wearing them and if the wrinkle starts looking more noticeable I'll post a pic. That is the only place any type of wrinkle is showing up, and the rest of the vamp creases do look very much like shell. The leather has a very rich appearance and there are a lot of lighter brown highlights in it. I wish I had a way to capture them in a photo. I'll keep trying and if one turns out well enough I'll post the coloring.

I also must add, the "Arch Preserver" is very comfortable to wear all day. I am very pleased with my purchase. 

Andy B.


----------



## Molly Coddle (May 30, 2013)

*True to size?*



andy b. said:


> I've worn them three days so far and they are just getting a very slight wrinkle in the vamp crease by my little toes. It looks different from my shell AE MacNeils, so I'd say they are probably calf. It won't show up in a photo, so I'll just have to keep wearing them and if the wrinkle starts looking more noticeable I'll post a pic. That is the only place any type of wrinkle is showing up, and the rest of the vamp creases do look very much like shell. The leather has a very rich appearance and there are a lot of lighter brown highlights in it. I wish I had a way to capture them in a photo. I'll keep trying and if one turns out well enough I'll post the coloring.
> 
> I also must add, the "Arch Preserver" is very comfortable to wear all day. I am very pleased with my purchase.
> 
> Andy B.


Still pleased after five years?

And are your 9.5C's true to size? I ran across a pair of 'vintage' Cordwainer Wrights that look nearly new at a good price. They're online, so I can't try them on first. They're 9.5D's, which is my size in most AE dress shoes. Looking for a higher degree of confidence about the fit from someone who knows.

Cheers.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Bein' as how andy b. hasn't posted anywhere on this forum in over two years, you may be waiting a while for a reply.


----------

