# Fake Allen Edmonds on Ebay?



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Perhaps in answer to an earlier question I posted about Ebay sellers, I yesterday received two used pairs of AE shoes from two different sellers. The first, a pair of Wilberts from theglassslipper05, were exactly as they had been described, are in good shape, and are no more and no less than what I expected for my money.

The second was a pair of Polos. I won't yet name the seller. One touch and I knew that something was up: the leather felt wrong. It smelled wrong. If felt plasticy. Like vinyl. I don't know what it smells like, just not leather. Other details:

The perforations are not done well. In one, the die hadn't punched all the way through, and I was able to peel out the chad (?) with my finger nail.

Puckering along a seem such that I've never seen before.

The channel around the sole is shallow: the stitches are on the surface. And the thread is white; on all of my AEs, the thread is black.

The AE label on the insole is wrong.

The fabric and lay out of the little AE lable on the inside of the shoe, in the little window, is the wrong color and the wrong lay out.

The number at the end of the serial number is 5. Polos are #1 last.

I took these shoes to the cobbler, who just the shoes and said, "I don't think this is leather." SHe examined it some more and concluded, in regard to details described above, that she had never seen things like this before on an AE. "These are not Allen Edmonds," she said.

Now I am contacting the seller and will be very eager to see how he responds.


----------



## YoungClayB (Nov 16, 2009)

Can you post some pictures? Some of AE's corrected grain offering from the 80's were pretty awful.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Working on it.

It occured to me that these could simply be old, which might explain some of these things.


YoungClayB said:


> Can you post some pictures? Some of AE's corrected grain offering from the 80's were pretty awful.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Here you can see where I peeled out the "chad" or whatever it's called from the perforation:


----------



## YoungClayB (Nov 16, 2009)

I don't see anything there that would make me think that they are "fakes" but I agree that they are pretty jacked up.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

The biggest piece of evidence is simply the feel of the leather. It simply feels like vinyl.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> The biggest piece of evidence is simply the feel of the leather. It simply feels like vinyl.


Some older versions were made with corrected grain (I have two pair in corrected grain, regrettably). Your shoes look completely legit and are at least 14 or so years old - I don't think AE uses the combination last any more and stopped using it around 14-15 years ago. They may have been seconds when they were purchased over a decade and a half ago or the previous owner may have beat the hell out of them or you just got a "bad pair" of old used shoes - you were expecting perfection?

Send AE the numbers on the inside of your shoes and they will tell you when they were made and out of what kind of leather.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

No, not perfection. I figured that at worse they'd be more beat up than I expected. I didn't expect crap leather.

I really appreciate your feedback. If these are legit, than it's my bad for taking the gamble on Ebay (and it's always a gamble).


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Faking something like an AE shoe is going to be far more effort than it's worth. It's not like they sell for $1,000!


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

joenobody0 said:


> Faking something like an AE shoe is going to be far more effort than it's worth. It's not like they sell for $1,000!


Neither do most Seikos, but they are still faked.


----------



## spielerman (Jul 21, 2007)

Fraser Tartan said:


> They're just older Allen-Edmonds shoes. I don't see anything unusual about any of the markings. The Polo was made in corrected grain leather as well.
> 
> You can browse through old Allen-Edmonds catalogs to learn about what they've made in the past.


So how does one identify a corrected grain leather shoe? I have a pair of AE Polos, the model is 8264 with a combo listed. They are chestnut polished cobbler - or said from the catalog - polished cobbler English calfskin -is that AKA corrected grain? Is it worth having them refurb them and correct the scuffing where it doesn't take color?


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

There is nothing in your photographs whatsoever to indicate that those shoes are not authentic. They merely appear to be an older pair of AEs (which have at one time been recrafted by AE.)

If someone were to counterfeit AE shoes, it is highly doubtful that they would copy an old, out of date pair!

You should utilize the resources of this forum in helping to determine the authenticity of the shoes, _before _panicking, starting an inflammatory thread and harassing the seller.
I have edited your title to tone down the drama, and to reflect the true nature of the thread.

You also could have asked here about the shoes before buying them.

If nothing else, this appears to be another example of why one might question the practice of buying used shoes.


----------



## YukonCornelius21 (Oct 28, 2009)

Fraser Tartan said:


> They're just older Allen-Edmonds shoes. I don't see anything unusual about any of the markings. The Polo was made in corrected grain leather as well.
> 
> You can browse through old Allen-Edmonds catalogs to learn about what they've made in the past.


Agree - just look really old to me too


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

spielerman said:


> So how does one identify a corrected grain leather shoe? I have a pair of AE Polos, the model is 8264 with a combo listed. They are chestnut polished cobbler - or said from the catalog - polished cobbler English calfskin -is that AKA corrected grain? Is it worth having them refurb them and correct the scuffing where it doesn't take color?


Polished cobbler is AE's term for corrected grain. Other quality manufacturers also use corrected grain, giving it a more positive term, such as Church's "polished bookbinder."
There are good quality corrected grain leathers, and there is nothing wrong with them, as long as you like that high-shine surface.

Corrected grain gets a bad name primarily from the fact that the process is the best way to hide the imperfections in a poor quality piece of leather, and most examples of corrected grain leather you come across will be just that.

The recrafting process includes re-dying the shoes. That would even out the color over a scuffed area, though I do not believe it is likely to bring the surface to a shine to match the unscuffed areas. Contact AE for their opinion.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I just got this email from the good folks at the Shoebank:

"the style number is actually 8264. This shoe used to be on the 4 last. This particular color was chestnut polished cobbler (corrected grain). Not exactly sure of when it was introduced, but it was discontinued in 1989; so it is at least that old. Introduction was also sometime in the 80's. Looks to be legit overall."

I see that the title of this thread was edited by the moderators. Thank you. This has been a good learning experience. I've also informed the seller that I was mistaken in my too hasty judgement. Among other things, this is a reminder that Ebay requires a lot of knowledge, more than I thought I had.

And I see that others have been here before me:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?82610-Fake-Allen-Edmonds-or-Old-AE-s


----------



## spielerman (Jul 21, 2007)

Thanks for the response on the Polished Cobbler... it looks like it is used in a lot of their burgundy shoes - which I guess I'm the proud owner of two of them (Polo and McNeil)... Another reason to stay away from cordovan/burgundy color in AE unless it is SHELL..


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

Fraser Tartan said:


> You can browse through old Allen-Edmonds catalogs to learn about what they've made in the past.


What fun! In 1970 they offered shoes in Char-Willow Llama Grain Calf, Tijuana Brass Sharkskin, and Hickory-Burr Weatherite with matching Yak Calf Combination.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

spielerman said:


> Thanks for the response on the Polished Cobbler... it looks like it is used in a lot of their burgundy shoes - which I guess I'm the proud owner of two of them (Polo and McNeil)... Another reason to stay away from cordovan/burgundy color in AE unless it is SHELL..


Yeah, I'll tend to bad mouth Alden quality, though I own about 30 or so pairs of Alden shell shoes, but I have to say, before I knew better, I bought two pairs of corrected grain shoes during law school and two pairs within 2 years of graduating (I still have the two pairs of Polos, not worn for years - all black and burgundy/black). I trusted, at the time, that AE meant quality. I still feel a bit betrayed that AE sold me those crap shoes. I don't care what people say, there is no excuse for a quality shoemaker selling corrected grain shoes. If they do, they should, at least, explain the difference and charge a lower price - they do not age as well as calfskin and are inferior. For Alden's faults, they haven't, to my knowledge, sold corrected grain shoes.


----------



## spielerman (Jul 21, 2007)

Epaminondas said:


> Yeah, I'll tend to bad mouth Alden quality, though I own about 30 or so pairs of Alden shell shoes, but I have to say, before I knew better, I bought two pairs of corrected grain shoes during law school and two pairs within 2 years of graduating (I still have the two pairs of Polos, not worn for years - all black and burgundy/black). I trusted, at the time, that AE meant quality. I still feel a bit betrayed that AE sold me those crap shoes. I don't care what people say, there is no excuse for a quality shoemaker selling corrected grain shoes. If they do, they should, at least, explain the difference and charge a lower price - they do not age as well as calfskin and are inferior. For Alden's faults, they haven't, to my knowledge, sold corrected grain shoes.


I'm learning, and have to say, didn't pay much for either pair. And I know lots of folks love their AE park avenues, yet, as I see, lots of corrected grain there too.and agree wouldn't pay the same for that when calf is available in the same model.. see the corrected grain in Bostonian (made in USA), J&M (made in USA), shoes that I have... so one could say it is up to four pairs...  Must get some quality shoes in my closet.. well not going to spend the $40 now to have those polo's fixed... why waste the money.

Now that I know better,


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Epaminondas said:


> I don't care what people say, there is no excuse for a quality shoemaker selling corrected grain shoes.


Surprisingly to some (including myself, to be honest) there are those who prefer having the ability to obtain an extremely high shine.
To my understanding, for instance, Church's polished bookbinder is very popular. Perhaps one of our members from the UK can elaborate on that.

I do not own any AE shoes in polished cobbler, but I do have one pair of Church's (pre-Prada) in polished bookbinder. They are quite a lovely pair of shoes. They are on a beautiful last and the workmanship is superb. The leather is of high quality, as well: extremely supple, despite being "polished," entirely unlike the terrible, sometimes almost cardboard-like corrected grain that one finds on poor quality shoes.
That said, I would enjoy them even more, though, if they were of natural calf.

My own personal preference is for a satin shine, rather than a high gloss polish. I use creme rather than wax and usually only a brush to finish the shine, no buffing cloth.

Ironically, there are those who will apply successive heavy layers of wax to calf, in order to fill in the natural pores and attain a high-gloss shine. For someone who prefers that look, I would think that a good-quality corrected grain might be a more logical choice.


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

spielerman said:


> Must get some quality shoes in my closet.. well not going to spend the $40 now to have those polo's fixed... why waste the money.


Aside from them being used shoes (which I personally have an aversion to) there is nothing wrong with those shoes. I can assure you that the leather will in all likelihood be of a far better quality than that used by Bostonian or J&M, unless those shoes are old enough to be from a period when those companies were still making top quality shoes.

From the photos, the leather appears to be quite supple. As long as you are comfortable with wearing used shoes, you can polish them up nicely (they _will _take a very high shine) and enjoy them in the comfort of knowing that they will be rather unique. There is little chance of you encountering someone else wearing the same shoes.

For future purchases, you may want to consider the suggestion often offered by many here of shunning used shoes and saving up a little to purchase a pair of new shoes from the shoe bank.
One pair of very nice shoes is far more enjoyable than many pair of mediocre ones.
You can take your time building a shoe collection. That is usually the best way.


----------



## spielerman (Jul 21, 2007)

Checkerboard 13 said:


> Aside from them being used shoes (which I personally have an aversion to) there is nothing wrong with those shoes. I can assure you that the leather will in all likelihood be of a far better quality than that used by Bostonian or J&M, unless those shoes are old enough to be from a period when those companies were still making top quality shoes.
> 
> From the photos, the leather appears to be quite supple. As long as you are comfortable with wearing used shoes, you can polish them up nicely (they _will _take a very high shine) and enjoy them in the comfort of knowing that they will be rather unique. There is little chance of you encountering someone else wearing the same shoes.
> 
> ...


Only thing to say here is I didn't buy the shoes that started this thread, I just jumped in cause I have some similar shoes- I'm all too familiar with the used shoe aversion so watch what I buy now very carefully...


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Checkerboard 13 said:


> If nothing else, this appears to be another example of why one might question the practice of buying used shoes.


Ditto.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Actually, the purchaser is at zero risk here. Ebay will always side with the buyer, so he can get his money back, especially if he did PP via a credit card. Just watch.

I'll disagree, strongly, with folks who say you should never buy used shoes. I've had a fit problem exactly twice, and I own, I'm guessing, in excess of 30 pairs of shoes purchased secondhand (many of them for less than $5 at thrift stores). I'd say that's a pretty good batting average. The math speaks for itself: Those 30 pairs would've cost me, easily, $7,000 if purchased new. I've invested less than two new pairs of AE PA's.



DocD said:


> Ditto.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

32rollandrock said:


> Actually, the purchaser is at zero risk here. Ebay will always side with the buyer, so he can get his money back, especially if he did PP via a credit card. Just watch.
> 
> I'll disagree, strongly, with folks who say you should never buy used shoes. I've had a fit problem exactly twice, and I own, I'm guessing, in excess of 30 pairs of shoes purchased secondhand (many of them for less than $5 at thrift stores). I'd say that's a pretty good batting average. The math speaks for itself: Those 30 pairs would've cost me, easily, $7,000 if purchased new. I've invested less than two new pairs of AE PA's.


What 32 said, with a similar number of shoes.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

^ I don't see why this has to be an all-or-nothing issue. I think DocD's well-known, expert objections make a lot of sense for shoes with significant wear, that are clearly broken-in by the prior owner. On the other hand, a nearly-new pair is about as safe for your feet (it would seem logical to say) as a new brand-new pair. Since the price is often much lower, ....


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Of course you shouldn't buy trashed secondhand shoes. Lotsa folks with Alden yearnings and Florsheim budgets do, however, and that's the getting-what-you-pay-for side of things. But you don't have to go so far as to rule out shoes that have been worn more than ten times. Trust me: I know. Not to drag him into this, but so does Patrick.

It is, for whatever reason, an all or nothing for a lot of folks. There's a school of thought out there that you should never buy second-hand sartorial anything. If that works for you, fine, but don't go saying that the rest of the world should do the same thing or else prepare for outbreaks of super cooties or chronic shingles, back trouble, etc. It just ain't true.

I draw the line at socks and underwear, which I buy on clearance. J. Crew is particularly good for the latter.



Kurt N said:


> ^ I don't see why this has to be an all-or-nothing issue. I think DocD's well-known, expert objections make a lot of sense for shoes with significant wear, that are clearly broken-in by the prior owner. On the other hand, a nearly-new pair is about as safe for your feet (it would seem logical to say) as a new brand-new pair. Since the price is often much lower, ....


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

32rollandrock said:


> Actually, the purchaser is at zero risk here. Ebay will always side with the buyer, so he can get his money back, especially if he did PP via a credit card. Just watch.
> 
> I'll disagree, strongly, with folks who say you should never buy used shoes. I've had a fit problem exactly twice, and I own, I'm guessing, in excess of 30 pairs of shoes purchased secondhand (many of them for less than $5 at thrift stores). I'd say that's a pretty good batting average. The math speaks for itself: Those 30 pairs would've cost me, easily, $7,000 if purchased new. I've invested less than two new pairs of AE PA's.


I'm not going to hijack this thread, nor am I going to repeat what I've already posted on this site numerous times regarding my feelings about purchasing/wearing used shoes. I've stated many times that there will always be exceptions to my years of observations treating patients.

I've also stated that my partners and I have treated enough preventable problems from patients purchasing/wearing used shoes, that we have a handout that we provide patients (I've posted that on this site). Barring true hardship, I would not allow any member of my family to wear a pair of used shoes, and that should tell the whole story.

I've been treating ailments of the foot and ankle medically and surgically for over 25 years as a partner in one of the busiest practices in the region, so I do have a "little" experience to form my opinion.

A copy of our handout for your review. It requires no commentary, because whether you decide to continue to purchase used shoes has no impact on me.

*FOOTWEAR RECOMMENDATIONS*​　
-The doctors in our practice recommend only purchasing "new" shoes and strongly advise against the practice of purchasing pre-owned or "used" shoes. In the absence of financial hardship, we also advise against the practice of wearing "hand-me-down" shoes in a family.
-Shoes and/or sneakers take on the "mold" and characteristics of the person wearing them. As a result, the footwear will sculpt itself to the unique shape and characteristics of the foot of the original wearer. Even the right foot will differ from the left foot. Higher quality men's dress shoes often have cork footbeds which form a type of footprint of the original wearer.
-Pre-owned/used footwear also create "wear" patterns in the sole and the uppers unique to the original wear that can cause problems if worn by anyone else.
-Our office has treated a significant amount of "nuisance" problems caused by patients wearing used/pre-owned/hand-me-down shoes. Although the vast majority of these problems are not serious and certainly not life threatening, we feel these problems have been preventable.
-Our office goal has always been to prevent problems, not only treat problems.
-We also recommend that when purchasing any shoes, natural products are superior to man-made materials. This is specifically true regarding leather vs. made made or synthetic leather materials. Some man made materials for specific applications such as Gore-Tex, etc, are excellent products.
-We also recommend that if possible, footwear be purchased in the late afternoon or evening. A significant percentage of the population experience some level of mild edema/swelling in their feet which has the potential to affect shoe fit, and this is most prevalent at the end of the day.
-Although ideally, purchasing shoes at a store with a Cped (certified pedorthist) is advised to assure proper fit, this isn't always possible. Purchase shoes according to fit, not your normal "size", since this can vary depending on each manufacturer. As a general rule, there should be approximately the width of a thumb between the end of the shoe and your longest toe. However this can vary depending on the shoe style, especially if the shoe has a long, narrow, pointed toe. Additionally it is very important for the shoe to fit the widest part of your foot. So there is no one answer, but a combination of shoe fitting tips. 
-We advise against wearing socks made up of 100% cotton, especially for athletic activities. Studies have shown that cotton loses it's ability to absorb moisture and when it gets wet (from perspiration) actually becomes abrasive and cause blisters, etc. It loses it's "loft". Synthetic blends have the ability to wick away moisture while still maintaining their loft and not causing irritation. High quality wool socks also have this ability.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT ANY OF THE TOPICS ABOVE, OR ANY FOOT OR ANKLE PROBLEM, PLEASE ASK ANY OF THE STAFF OR THE DOCTORS.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> I'll disagree, strongly, with folks who say you should never buy used shoes.


I would never buy used shoes, simply because I don't want to end up with another person's athlete's foot or worse. Can a pair of used shoes ever be properly and completely sterilised, including removing fungal spores which may have got into the fabrics and leathers of the shoes?


----------



## YoungClayB (Nov 16, 2009)

Why does every single thread on this forum having ANYTHING to do with buying a pair of used shoes ALWAYS turn into a debate about the merits/detriments of buying used shoes. The purpose of this thread was to help the OP determine whether the shoes he bought from eBay were fake or genuine AEs. A consensus has been established that they are not fake. What else is there to discuss here really?


----------



## spielerman (Jul 21, 2007)

YoungClayB said:


> Why does every single thread on this forum having ANYTHING to do with buying a pair of used shoes ALWAYS turn into a debate about the merits/detriments of buying used shoes. The purpose of this thread was to help the OP determine whether the shoes he bought from eBay were fake or genuine AEs. A consensus has been established that they are not fake. What else is there to discuss here really?


Consider this thread Hijacked..... wasn't where it was headed... as you said, but it is where it went :9


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

Either the thread was done _or_ it was hijacked. Can't be both! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## jjskywlker (Dec 9, 2009)

I believe the Doctor wouldn't have to "hijack" all of the used shoe threads if 90% of them weren't regarding negative experiences about the subject. In this case, the OP bought some shoes that ended up being 15 year old shoes and previously enjoyed. Frankly with AE's, call up the shoe bank and get some seconds or discontinued models for peanuts vs. the new cost. The whole AE/Alden on a Florsheim budget doesn't hold water.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

jjskywlker said:


> In this case, the OP bought some shoes that ended up being 15 year old shoes and previously enjoyed.


'gently worn' is the phrase/euphemism which is often used to describe items in this sort of condition on Ebay. 'mint' is another word potential Ebay purchasers should be aware of as well, as very often the item's condition is anything but mint.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I would agree with this. Here's why it happens:

The doctor is entitled to his opinion, the used-shoe camp is entitled to theirs. Both opinions are well-known here. Yet, someone always pipes up. The reason why it inspires passion is that those of us in the used-shoe camp feel as if we are selling/wearing heroin when someone says that used shoes cause health problems. Those of us in the used-shoe camp think that's ridiculous because we've worn used shoes all our lives, we know lots of folks who have worn used shoes all their lives, there are tons of used shoes for sale everywhere you look and no one's feet are falling off. And so we feel unfairly shamed. Our ire is further raised when we read all this stuff about last size written, mostly (I presume), by new-shoers. If the blessed manufacturers can't size consistently on spanking-new shoes, even within the same company, then why should brick bats be tossed at us?

I would add one thing: If, as the doctor suggests, foot size changes during the day, should not we all have sets of before-five shoes and sets of after-five shoes? Wouldn't it be harmful to have an after-five foot stuffed into a before-five shoe, or a before-five foot swimming in an after-five shoe? I'm just askin'.

Finally, I would suggest a detente. The used-shoe camp never fires first. And so, with all respect (really), I would suggest that the new-shoe camp stand down when someone asks a question about used shoes. In all likelihood, they bought used shoes because they cannot afford new, and so telling them to buy new shoes won't help anyway.



YoungClayB said:


> Why does every single thread on this forum having ANYTHING to do with buying a pair of used shoes ALWAYS turn into a debate about the merits/detriments of buying used shoes. The purpose of this thread was to help the OP determine whether the shoes he bought from eBay were fake or genuine AEs. A consensus has been established that they are not fake. What else is there to discuss here really?


----------



## ChicagoTrad (Feb 19, 2007)

32rollandrock said:


> Actually, the purchaser is at zero risk here. Ebay will always side with the buyer, so he can get his money back, especially if he did PP via a credit card. Just watch.
> 
> I'll disagree, strongly, with folks who say you should never buy used shoes. I've had a fit problem exactly twice, and I own, I'm guessing, in excess of 30 pairs of shoes purchased secondhand (many of them for less than $5 at thrift stores). I'd say that's a pretty good batting average. The math speaks for itself: Those 30 pairs would've cost me, easily, $7,000 if purchased new. I've invested less than two new pairs of AE PA's.


Strongly agree here. I have had a couple of pairs I didn't like and either returned or discarded them, but I didn't spend a lot in the first place. On the whole, however, my experiences have been very solid. Just recently I picked up a pair of plain-toe, pebble-grain bluchers by Nettleton, a pair of Hanover shell long wings, and another pair of hanover long-wings in pebble grain for pretty much nothing. All 3 are in great shape and are beautiful shoes.

The trick for me is that people should be realistic about what they are getting and understand that this isn't like walking into Nordstom's to buy shoes


----------



## ChicagoTrad (Feb 19, 2007)

Checkerboard 13 said:


> Aside from them being used shoes (which I personally have an aversion to) there is nothing wrong with those shoes. I can assure you that the leather will in all likelihood be of a far better quality than that used by Bostonian or J&M, unless those shoes are old enough to be from a period when those companies were still making top quality shoes.
> 
> From the photos, the leather appears to be quite supple. As long as you are comfortable with wearing used shoes, you can polish them up nicely (they _will _take a very high shine) and enjoy them in the comfort of knowing that they will be rather unique. There is little chance of you encountering someone else wearing the same shoes.
> 
> ...


Good points on the quality of the leather.. There is corrected grain and there is corrected grain. Different makers do the job at very different price points and quality. I think I have a pair of the AE corrected grains somewhere that I saved for rainy days. They are pretty good as are the corrected grain Crockett & Jones shoes I have that were made for RLauren. I wear those as well. I also have some cheap cole haans from India that had the worst plastic I've ever seen.

Those shoes already have Topy's on them. If they are comfortable and you can work a bit of conditioner and polish onto them, I'd wear them and save them for your rain days.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

*Maybe not for a pair of AE's, but...*



MikeDT said:


> Can a pair of used shoes ever be properly and completely sterilised, including removing fungal spores which may have got into the fabrics and leathers of the shoes?


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

32rollandrock said:


> I would agree with this. Here's why it happens:
> 
> The doctor is entitled to his opinion, the used-shoe camp is entitled to theirs. Both opinions are well-known here. Yet, someone always pipes up. The reason why it inspires passion is that those of us in the used-shoe camp feel as if we are selling/wearing heroin when someone says that used shoes cause health problems. Those of us in the used-shoe camp think that's ridiculous because we've worn used shoes all our lives, we know lots of folks who have worn used shoes all their lives, there are tons of used shoes for sale everywhere you look *and no one's feet are falling off.* And so we feel unfairly shamed. Our ire is further raised when we read all this stuff about last size written, mostly (I presume), by new-shoers. If the blessed manufacturers can't size consistently on spanking-new shoes, even within the same company, then why should brick bats be tossed at us?
> 
> ...


I'm only going to respond to the highlighted points;

1) How do you know that "no one's feet are falling off"? Do you treat foot ailments on a regular basis? Although I have been very careful in my prior posts to state that it is very rare for those wearing used shoes to suffer from any serious ailments, I have treated some significant problems due to this practice and the practice of wearing any poorly fitting shoe.

This is particularly true on any patient who may have impaired circulation or neuropathy, or a combination of both. This past week I performed an amputation on a 38 year old male who decided to wear his brother-in-laws shoes on a 3 week cruise/vacation. He developed pressure sores which were initially treated improperly, became infected, etc.,etc. By the time he entered the emergency room where I perform surgery, the consultations with vascular specialists, infectious disease specialist and myself all concluded that an amputation was the only recourse and therefore I performed the surgery on Thursday. Once again, this can occur due to a used shoe or any ill fitting shoe. It's certainly the exception and not the rule, but it happens and it DID happen. If anyone wants me to post the pictures of the amputation, I'll be happy to oblige.

2) Your second comment that I highlighted infers that I have formed the opinion that feet swell at the end of the day, and that you somehow don't believe this fact. First of all, this isn't my opinion, but a well known medical fact. Secondly, if you read my comment carefully, you will also note that in our office handout it states that "a signficant percentage of the population" have feet that swell at the end of the day, NOT everyone. This is for a host of reasons, and the first reason is simply gravity. There are also many medications that cause this to occur, including many cardiac medications such as Norvasc, etc. Although I'm sure you are proud of yourself for being so clever and suggesting that IF feet really swell, than why don't we need two sets of shoes during the day, I'm afraid you "don't get it". It's not that feet become balloons like a cartoon. It's simply the fact that it's wise to purchase a shoe at the time of day when your feet have the potential to be the largest, so the shoe doesn't feel tight. That doesn't mean that if you wear the same shoes in the morning they will be falling off your feet. If the edema/swelling is that severe, you've got some serious medical problems. A shoe that is slightly loose is much more comfortable than a shoe that is slightly tight.

3) I personally don't agree that the majority of those who purchase used shoes do so because they can't afford new. I know many who purchase used shoes yet wear high end NEW suits, drive high end NEW cars, etc. To me it's simply a matter of priority, and where many have placed their priorities.

4) It makes NO difference to me whether you or anyone else wears used shoes, it has no impact on me, nor do I judge anyone who chooses this practice. However, as someone who has a decent knowledge of the foot/ankle, I do simply report my opinion, based on my experience. It's then your choice to decide which path you'd like to take.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

DocD, I think you are, as usual, mostly persuasive. The amputation, in particular, is a memorable cautionary tale.

I would just want to add that really, education is the key. That is the main reason I value your posts--but it's also how I now know that I've done more damage to my feet buying _new shoes in the wrong width_, back when I was ignorant, than I have more recently by buying lightly-used shoes, after a careful, patient eBay hunt.


----------



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

I've never seen _non_-CG AE polos.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

By definition, any leather that is not "full grain" is corrected to some degree. If you can't see the tiny holes where the beasts' hair was attached, it is at least corrected by a light sanding, to smooth out imperfections. This type of correction is common in shoeleather that has been dyed a darker color, even very high quality leather. High grade leather that has been sanded and split, and thus corrected, is often called "top grain." These can be very good shoes, and the light sanding helps them take the dye better. Any shoe leather that has been embossed, if that's the proper word, with scotch grain, pebble grain, etc is regarded as corrected, and the imprinted grain helps hide irregularities. What we generally call "corrected grain" here is leather that has been more heavily sanded, then given a dark stain and a surface coating of whatever plasticky stuff they use to give it that "brush off shine." I've always had a pair of "cordovan" colored, plasticated pennies, and I think they're fine for what they are. They're shiny, but what you can't get with cg is depth of shine. For a true patina to develop, for the kind of exquisite glow seen on Mac 's, or Srivat's shoes, and many others', you need the natural surface of the leather. And, of course, it's got to be superb leather - like corrected grains, not all full grain leathers are equal.


----------



## Claus (Apr 8, 2010)

I though, the medical profession is based on science, today. If so, the first question to ask about any claim is: Where's the evidence?

Unfortunately, the relationship between behavior and health problems is usually difficult to prove.

Think about one of the best researched relationships: Smoking and cancer. Although there's the proverbial "smoked-two-packs-a-day" guy who never got cancer, it's quite clear that smoking increases one's chances to develop cancer. But to prove the hypothesis, tons of studies were necessary.

Now let's review the case presented here:

To see a doctor advocate to purchase shoes "according to fit" makes me wonder: If the subjective feeling of fit is so reliable, why do so many people buy non-fitting shoes and develop problems?

Why is there no reference to foot (length) measurement in the brochure?

One condition of wearing fitting shoes is correct shoe size, based on foot length. A correct shoe size implies a correct allowance, unless one assumes that the last maker was incompetent. Does it make sense to assume Alden's or AE's last makers are incompetent?

With a proper shoe size (and thus allowance), no "thumb test" is necessary; in fact, this is really dubious. It's already been said that shoe style affects allowance. How would somebody judge this without being a last maker? More important: sitting or kneeling down removes weight from your feet and makes them shorter. And how do people get their thumb to their toes? 

Maybe, it useful to remind ourselves that doctors are human, and their judgment is just a biased as everyone else's.

For example, they usually don't see a true random sample of patients -- people without health problems are unlikely to visit. Pointers to 'experience' and presenting an anecdote about one poor soul is not science.

If a proper study about the effects of wearing used shoes would exists, I'm sure a reference could be provided.

Otherwise, it's just an unproven hypothesis.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Claus said:


> Otherwise, it's just an unproven hypothesis.


...but not an unevidenced one.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

First off, yeah, I want to see them: Show the photos from the amputation that came about because someone wore his brother-in-law's shoes for three weeks on a cruise. You said you would post them, do it. And no "etc., etc., etc." You said the guy needed his foot cut off because he wore someone else's shoes. Prove it. No photos? It didn't happen.

I can tell you a bit about second-hand shoes that don't fit. I made the mother of all mistakes in that regard many years ago, when I thrifted a pair of LL Bean hiking boots that were too tight, then took off the next day to hike the Wonderland Trail (for those unfamiliar, it's 90-some miles with 20,000 or so feet of elevation gain). I had a full pack weighing 90 or so pounds that got lighter as the journey progressed as I consumed food. I presume you are familiar with the term hammer toe. My lord. What pain. Pain as bad as I have ever experienced. Pain that made my cry for my mama in the wilderness whenever I stepped on a rock--or pine cone, for that matter--wrong, but my mother never came. The hike lasted nine days. Both big toenails turned black and fell off. It was that bad.

You know what I would have done if I hadn't been in the middle of the wilderness? I would have taken the damn shoes off! But I couldn't, because barefoot with full pack on rocky trail would've been even worse than howling in pain whenever I didn't walk just so (and believe me, I learned to step most gingerly). Granted, this is personal experience, and YMMV, but I have a hard time believing that a 38-year-old man would not have taken the damn shoes off if he were on a cruise ship and they were such an awful fit that he ended up losing his feet. Come on. Did this cruise ship stop in any ports where shoes were sold? Was he so destitute that he couldn't afford to buy shoes if, indeed, the ship anchored somewhere (as opposed to being on the Podiatrist Adventure)? Was this cruise ship (no doubt dubbed "The Valley Forge") sponsored by Thom McAn?

Again, come on. Photos, or it didn't happen. And when you post those photos, please refer me to the appropriate medical literature (peer-reviewed, please) documenting cases of folks losing feet to second-hand shoes within three weeks' time. Surely, someone would write about that. So I am clear: If second-hand shoes are a bona fide risk, then the New England Journal of Medicine or a similar publication would have published an article about that. Let's see it.

End of day, you're a foot doctor. You no doubt see a lot of folks with screwed-up feet. My money says, the overwhelming majority of folks are fine with second-hand shoes. A tiny, tiny portion of the population might--might--develop issues. Having no evidence to the contrary, and you being an MD and all, I'll allow you that. But don't tell me that feet are at risk from second-hand shoes, that one day you're fine, the next thing you know, your toes are black and there are red streaks rising toward your knees.

There is a lot of other stuff you said that I won't go into, save for your opinion that folks who buy second hand shoes do so because they can't afford new ones. How on earth could you possibly know that? You can come by my crib anytime.

I've gone on long enough. Photos. You promised. Let's see.



DocD said:


> I'm only going to respond to the highlighted points;
> 
> 1) How do you know that "no one's feet are falling off"? Do you treat foot ailments on a regular basis? Although I have been very careful in my prior posts to state that it is very rare for those wearing used shoes to suffer from any serious ailments, I have treated some significant problems due to this practice and the practice of wearing any poorly fitting shoe.
> 
> ...


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Claus said:


> I though, the medical profession is based on science, today. If so, the first question to ask about any claim is: Where's the evidence?
> 
> Unfortunately, the relationship between behavior and health problems is usually difficult to prove.
> 
> ...


Whenever I discuss my OPINION on this matter, it's inevitable that someone will fall back on the old "where is the literature to support your case". And as I've stated many times in the past, there are far more pressing medical issues to research than the relationship between foot problems and used shoes. Not exactly at the top of the scale of importance in medical research.

And as I've stated many times (but you seem to ignore), the problems that do exist are rarely serious or life threatening, which would put research on this subject even further down the list on important issues to study.

The new buzz term is "evidence based medicine", though there are things practiced daily in every specialty that are done based on practice experience and outcomes, not necessarily published EBM. But people like you always fall back on EBM or "show me the research" when it's convenient.

I know of no written literature or official research that has been published that tells me that running across a highway of traffic is dangerous, but it's not something I recommend. I know of no published research that tells me that my patients shouldn't soak their feet in boiling water, but it's not something I would recommend.

There are some things that become evident after treating thousands and thousands of patients practicing over 25 years. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make sound judgements. Your comment regarding not seeing a true random sample of patients is ridiculous. The only point that IS important is that I DO see patients with pathology created by wearing used shoes.

Additionally, you critique our office handout, which is simply a guide and not an all inclusive shoe fitting book. Your critique states that shoe style affects allowance regarding measuring, yet that IS in our handout if you would simply read it correctly. Here is the line from our handout: Although ideally, purchasing shoes at a store with a Cped (certified pedorthist) is advised to assure proper fit, this isn't always possible. Purchase shoes according to fit, not your normal "size", since this can vary depending on each manufacturer. As a general rule, there should be approximately the width of a thumb between the end of the shoe and your longest toe. *However this can vary depending on the shoe style, especially if the shoe has a long, narrow, pointed toe*. Additionally it is very important for the shoe to fit the widest part of your foot. So there is no one answer, but a combination of shoe fitting tips. 

Additionally, you make a comment about our GENERAL recommendation regarding the width of a thumb between the longest toe and the end of the shoe, and don't understand how this can be accurate since your foot is shorter when kneeling or sitting down. Well, did you ever think of standing up and measuring??? If you are out of shape and can't reach down that far, I'd recommend you have someone assist you.

Overall, I'm still amazed that instead of simply taking my experience and either applying my recommendations or ignoring my recommendations, people actually will try to find fault with everything I say.

I really could care less if you or anyone else wears used shoes, it will have no impact on my life. However, if one person follows my advice and can avoid problems as a result, THAN I'll be happy. I'm confident that if the patient that had an amputation on Thursday followed my advice, he'd be much happier.

But than again, that's just my hypothesis.

So instead of all the wasted time criticizing, why don't you simply take my comments for what they were intended for, avoiding problems IF you want to apply the information. If not, good luck.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

^^

You have answered my questions completely.

No evidence. No photos. No peer-reviewed literature.

I will not belabor the point. Please, in the future, do not put forth this nonsense again, so that we may all be saved the inevitable back-and-forth to which others have understandably objected. If someone says they are experiencing pain/medical issues after wearing second-hand shoes, by all means. Otherwise, respectfully, when someone has a question about ebayed used shoes with no hammer toe or gangrene in evidence, kindly keep your opinions to yourself. Thanks.



DocD said:


> Whenever I discuss my OPINION on this matter, it's inevitable that someone will fall back on the old "where is the literature to support your case". And as I've stated many times in the past, there are far more pressing medical issues to research than the relationship between foot problems and used shoes. Not exactly at the top of the scale of importance in medical research.
> 
> And as I've stated many times (but you seem to ignore), the problems that do exist are rarely serious or life threatening, which would put research on this subject even further down the list on important issues to study.
> 
> ...


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> ^^
> 
> You have answered my questions completely.
> 
> ...


 Forgive me for saying so, but I am afraid that you are the one spouting nonsense.
You are welcome to your opinion, but your have absolutely no right whatsoever to tell others what they can or cannot post.

Give your rant a rest.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

He's the one who offered proof, then didn't deliver. Can't see how that's my bad.

Forgive me, my left foot just fell off. I'll get right back...



Checkerboard 13 said:


> Forgive me for saying so, but I am afraid that you are the one spouting nonsense.
> You are welcome to your opinion, but your have absolutely no right whatsoever to tell others what they can or cannot post.
> 
> Give your rant a rest.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

spielerman said:


> I'm learning, and have to say, didn't pay much for either pair. And I know lots of folks love their AE park avenues, yet, as I see, lots of corrected grain there too.and agree wouldn't pay the same for that when calf is available in the same model.. see the corrected grain in Bostonian (made in USA), J&M (made in USA), shoes that I have... so one could say it is up to four pairs...  Must get some quality shoes in my closet.. well not going to spend the $40 now to have those polo's fixed... why waste the money.
> 
> Now that I know better,


 Park Avenue is made in Custom Calf, Burnished Calf, and Grain Calf. No corrected grain as far as I can see.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> He's the one who offered proof, then didn't deliver. Can't see how that's my bad.
> 
> Forgive me, my left foot just fell off. I'll get right back...


I am regularly struck by how rare it is for people to say, "This is a difficult empirical question, and I'm not sure what the right answer is." I mean, given that a lot of questions actually fall into that category.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I am regularly struck by how common it is for people to say things that leave me puzzled.

Dude said he would post photos. I said do it. He didn't.

Any questions?



Kurt N said:


> I am regularly struck by how rare it is for people to say, "This is a difficult empirical question, and I'm not sure what the right answer is." I mean, given that a lot of questions actually fall into that category.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

"Here we go again..."


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

I don't know why DocD promised photos and then didn't post them. He may still; but if he wasn't prepared to do so, he shouldn't have offered.



32rollandrock said:


> Any questions?


Yes. Why do you feel "unfairly shamed" by DocD's posts? Because I don't. In the first place it's not unfair for him to give an opinion, based on his considerable experience. And in the second place, since this is a complicated question I feel no shame over noting his concerns and then making my own choices.

EDIT: I should say this, though: I erred in, and apologize for, singling out your "my left foot just fell off" post. It was, or should have been, equally directed at DocD's categorical opposition to used shoes. It does seem like if used shoes are so terrible, there ought to be a scholarly article or two on the topic.


----------



## Sufferable Fob (Aug 26, 2009)

I don't think the problem is so much "used shoes" as "used shoes that have conformed to a significantly different foot" or ones that just plain do not fit.

It's possible to find "used" shoes that have barely been worn or not at all. Someone buys them, realises they actually _don't_ like them and tries to sell them to recoup some of the loss. I don't see any great problem here - you get a basically new shoe to break in and the other person gets to try to make a wiser investment next time.

If anyone's worried about fungus, remember that you can get "infected" shoes that are "new" from stores. You're probably safer with a properly cleaned pair of used shoes than a never-cleaned pair of "new" shoes. Even if they haven't been tried on, are you sure they weren't contaminated with something in the factory, hmm ?

I only own one pair of used shoes, they were made in 1910 or something. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Please don't try to intimidate me by challenging me to post the photo of the amputation I performed, I'd be happy to oblige as I stated in my prior post.

The photo(s) are in my cell phone (taken after the case when the pathology specimen was on the table), and if someone could recommend exactly how I can get the photos from my cell phone onto this site, I'd be MORE than happy to oblige.

Please be cautioned that when I post these photos they will be extremely graphic, since the pictures will be of an amputation showing the amputated portion on the operating room table. It may be offensive to some, but apparently I have something to "prove" to this clown.

Once again, it boggles my mind that ANYONE would realistically believe that with all the serious illnesses abundant in the world, someone would think that there would be funding for a research paper on the pitfalls of wearing used shoes. And although I've repeated this at least 50 times, I've NEVER stated that wearing used shoes was "that terrible", it's simply a practice I don't condone. Is that so hard to comprehend?

Why does everyone get so offended by my opinion? Do you get as equally offended if someone tells you that they like a 3 button suit vs. a 2 button suit?

Come on, get your head out of your ass.


----------



## calfnkip (Mar 21, 2011)

I’m a long time lurker, who registered with the forum specifically to contribute to this thread, so this may be my one and only post. 

I spent most of my working life around leather and tanneries. My expertise is in calfskin, side leather and glazed kid. I’ve not only worked in tanneries, but sold leather to shoe companies (men’s and women’s), as well as handbag and accessories manufacturers. I left the business several years ago when just too many of our customers decided to either close their doors or move their manufacturing offshore. 

I’d like to throw my two cents’ worth in about corrected grain leathers from a technical standpoint if I may.

There is a legitimate place for corrected grain leather in the line of any quality footwear manufacturer. Corrected grain leathers have characteristics that separate them from their full grain siblings. For instance, full grain aniline leathers, which everyone professes to love, don’t turn water as well as corrected grain leathers and (depending on the underlying tannage, which is another issue altogether) can even blister if soaked by rain. That makes corrected grain a good choice for inclement weather. 

Someone also mentioned that corrected grain leathers maintain a very bright shine and that is very true. Some customers prefer that look, while others prefer the more subdued sheen possible with full grain.

A shoe manufacturer can also do things with the aesthetics of corrected grain leathers that can’t be done with full grain. Corrected grain leathers that have been treated with a succession of finish layers in different shades can be ‘antiqued’ or ‘burnished’ to produce color and contrast effects not possible with full grain leathers. This technique was popular some years ago. It requires added expense on the part of the tanner and finisher (see below), and skill in the shoe factory packing room that is just no longer widely available. I’ve watched a good technician in the packing room perform magic with a properly made corrected grain shoe, a cloth buffing wheel and some dressing. 

I believe I saw a comment (perhaps in another thread) that corrected grain leathers somehow aren’t as good quality-wise as full grain. That’s only true to a point. Corrected grain leathers start out as otherwise good leather that possess too many surface flaws to pass muster as either full grain smooth leather or even full grain printed (embossed) leather. The layers of collagen underneath the epidermal layer must be of sufficient density and quality to withstand footwear stresses - - i.e. flexing. And all sorts of surface flaws can cause a hide to be eligible for corrected grain treatment. Scratches are what everyone (even shoe manufacturers) immediately thinks of, but there are also fly and tick bites, mange from matted hair during heavy snowfall, acid burns from cows lying in their own dung on feedlots during the winter trying to stay warm and a host of parasites like grubs. 

Yeah, that’s a lot. And it’s probably more than most readers of this forum want to know, but that’s the kind of calculus that goes into the tanner’s art. When a tanner buys a truckload of hides, he has to work all of them without exception. If he doesn’t he loses money. But there are techniques appropriate both to grade of the hide and the intended use of the finished leather. Corrected grain is just one available option. 

Now here’s the shocker. Corrected grain leather is actually more expensive to make than full grain. There are simply more steps in the process to arrive at corrected grain leather than for full grain. That means both material and labor costs are higher. Not only does the leather have to be snuffed/abraded, but for some purposes multiple layers of fairly expensive finishing materials must be applied depending on what effect the customer wants in the final product. If the leather is to be printed as well, then that is an additional expense. 

Tanners have always had to fight the low-quality perceptions about corrected grain leathers. They perpetually struggle to just break even on selling it despite the amount of work and even creativity that can go into making a good piece of corrected grain leather.

If tanner and shoe manufacturer have both done their jobs well, then there is no reason a corrected grain shoe can’t be attractive and have a wear life comparable to its full grain counterpart. 

Just thought you’d all like to know.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

DocD said:


> Once again, it boggles my mind that ANYONE would realistically believe that with all the serious illnesses abundant in the world, someone would think that there would be funding for a research paper on the pitfalls of wearing used shoes.


DodD, in the sciences there are articles published on all sorts of arcane topics. For instance, it took me just a few minutes browsing at https://www.japmaonline.org to find an article on the relation between _shoe color and heat-related injury in people with insensate feet_:

https://www.japmaonline.org/cgi/con...s&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=10&resourcetype=HWCIT

Not all research requires a large-scale, funding-supported clinical trial. In this case the paper presents the results of a small-scale, inexpensive experiment followed by three case studies.

If there's a paper on something like that, it's not mind-boggling to think there might be a paper on used shoes.


----------



## Claus (Apr 8, 2010)

DocD said:


> Why does everyone get so offended by my opinion? Do you get as equally offended if someone tells you that they like a 3 button suit vs. a 2 button suit?


I can only speak for myself.

In general, I believe a debate is useful, because it enables both sites to present the arguments and facts that support or refute a hypothesis.

More specifically: You are a doctor. People trust you because of your title. This wouldn't matter if we were discussing preferences about suits, but it does matter when you make medical claims. Theoretically, you should be extra careful when making such claims. When you're giving advise, the truth matters --- not just for your patients, and your readers, but also for your profession, I'd say.

If you agree, then your statements are indeed a little bit confusing: On the one hand, you say you 


> [...] NEVER stated that wearing used shoes was "that terrible", it's simply a practice I don't condone.


On the other hand, you present an anecdote about somebody loosing a foot, apparently because of wearing used shoes. Call me a fool, but to me loosing a foot sounds indeed terrible. If I'm not mistaken, such an incident may also mean financial ruin for a family due to potential lack of insurance.

Therefore, I feel justified to wonder whether your hypothesis is supported by evidence.



> The only point that IS important is that I DO see patients with pathology created by wearing used shoes.


This is hardly a scientific conclusion. Truth is: you do have patients with pathologies. Some of them do happen to wear used shoe. But you can't say one _caused_ the other. It might be a mere coincidence. It might be a correlation with an underlying, unknown factor (for example, poorness or bad fit).

Causation can only be established with a proper experimental design and sample.



> Once again, it boggles my mind that ANYONE would realistically believe that with all the serious illnesses abundant in the world, someone would think that there would be funding for a research paper on the pitfalls of wearing used shoes.


There are probably thousands of PhD students each year, everyone required to present original research in a thesis. The odds that nobody -- except you -- noted a connection between foot health and the wearing of used shoes seems rather low. The scientific literature, in general, is full of papers discussing minor problems. I doubt this is different for the medical literature.

I certainly agree with you that wearing bad fitting shoes is a risk for the wearer (and therefore I'm disappointed about the information in your flyer). And if I'm informed correctly, there are medical studies that support this claim.

As a consequence, it's certainly bad to wear the shoes of a relative because they are unlikely to fit. This says nothing about buying used shoes, provided they fit.

Personally, I wouldn't buy used shoes, unless I'd be forced to. I simply find the though a little bit disgusting but that's just me.

In conclusion, I find your arguments about a relationship between wearing old shoes, in general, and medical problems to be weak, at best. When comparing to the relative importance of bad fit and wearing used shoes, the former seems to have a much higher impact on foot health.

However, maybe I just misunderstand your point because I'm not a native speaker. If so, please accept my apology.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

DocD: You need a memory card in your phone and a USB cable that connects the phone to a computer. Alternately, many phones can connect to laptops or Bluetooth-equipped desktops.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

thanks for the excellent post, calfnkip.


----------



## spielerman (Jul 21, 2007)

calfnkip said:


> I'm a long time lurker, who registered with the forum specifically to contribute to this thread, so this may be my one and only post.
> 
> I spent most of my working life around leather and tanneries. My expertise is in calfskin, side leather and glazed kid. I've not only worked in tanneries, but sold leather to shoe companies (men's and women's), as well as handbag and accessories manufacturers. I left the business several years ago when just too many of our customers decided to either close their doors or move their manufacturing offshore.
> 
> ...


Excellent first post, and information that I can actually use! Hope this gets more air time than where the current Hijacked discussion was going. Keep up the contributions!


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Kurt,
Please, tell me you're kidding me. There is a significant difference between a peer reviewed published research study, and a simple case report as you have cited. The case reports in that article are no different than me reporting 3 or more "case reports" from my practice. This would certainly not satisfy the needs of all those on this site who are craving an evidence based medicine study on my *observations*.

My point is that with all the serious medical conditions, I highly doubt if anyone is going to perform an evidenced based study on the perils of used shoes. 'Ain't gonna happen anytime soon, I assure you.

As previously mentioned, I'm not very technologically savvy and don't know how to get the photo from my phone onto this site. If anyone will provide that information, I will be happy to post the picture(s) I mentioned in a prior post.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> He's the one who offered proof, then didn't deliver. Can't see how that's my bad.
> 
> Forgive me, my left foot just fell off. I'll get right back...


I for one, do not need to see photos of NASTY feet to convince me not to put my foot into anyone elses shoe for any reason!!

Studies, papers and empirical data be damned!!


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Jovan said:


> DocD: You need a memory card in your phone and a USB cable that connects the phone to a computer. Alternately, many phones can connect to laptops or Bluetooth-equipped desktops.


I do not have a memory card, though I do have a USB cable. However, I'm sorry to say I will need detailed step by step directions. If it's any help, the photos are on my Blackberry.

Thanks.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

DocD said:


> Kurt,
> Please, tell me you're kidding me. There is a significant difference between a peer reviewed published research study, and a simple case report as you have cited. The case reports in that article are no different than me reporting 3 or more "case reports" from my practice. This would certainly not satisfy the needs of all those on this site who are craving an evidence based medicine study on my *observations*.
> 
> My point is that with all the serious medical conditions, I highly doubt if anyone is going to perform an evidenced based study on the perils of used shoes. 'Ain't gonna happen anytime soon, I assure you.
> ...


Re. evidence: of _course_ there's a big difference between a big study and a write-up of a few cases! That's exactly why the latter is more reasonable to ask for. I respect expert opinion and consider case studies a form of data. Whether or not they qualify as evidence-based medicine, they're something. Whether or not they would satisfy everyone, they would be of interest to me.

Re. pix, see my PM.


----------



## ada8356 (Dec 14, 2007)

nice post calfnkip


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Why do you clowns have to see specific nasty feet??

Just google nasty feet and you'll see all the infected, puss-soaked stincking nasty feet you can handle!!


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

DocD said:


> Please be cautioned that when I post these photos they will be extremely graphic, since the pictures will be of an amputation showing the amputated portion on the operating room table. It may be offensive to some, but apparently I have something to "prove" to this clown.


As far as I can tell, none of the posters who have challenged your opinions are your professional peers, and none of them are in a position to use their attacks to damage your practice. So, given that they lack the experience and knowledge to mount a successful challenge, why do you even bother to respond?

I suggest you refrain from taking the bait, and I request that you NOT post amputation photos on a public forum devoted to men's clothing. If someone needs amputation photos to get their rocks off, and you feel like obliging, you can email them straight from your Blackberry to that person.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Wouldn't posting photos of someone's chopped-off feet violate doctor-patient confidentiality somehow? Unless, of course, you asked the guy.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Pentheos said:


> Wouldn't posting photos of someone's chopped-off feet violate doctor-patient confidentiality somehow? Unless, of course, you asked the guy.


Patient privacy laws would only be violated if there was anything in the photograph identifying the patient. There is no label or identifying feature, therefore there would be no violation, but your point is well taken. However, because I teach residents, I do have patient permission and consent to photograph and use those photographs for every surgical case I perform, but NEVER provide patient information.

However, I believe from this point forward I will follow the advice of Racer.

If anyone wants or NEEDS to see those photos, PM me and I'll figure out a way to oblige.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Doc, if you want to get the photos out of your phone, you should be able to send them as a picture text message to your own email address (instead of putting in a phone number).

And, for what it's worth, I think the reason you get so much flak here--and the reason people won't just use a "take it or leave it" approach to your opinion--is because you imply that everyone ought to take your advice and live by it because you're an expert. 

It's also because your experience, while legitimate and unarguable to an extent, is also chock full of self-selection bias. I say that because your experience, by necessity, isn't a representative sample of those who wear used shoes. By the nature of your job, you only see the ones with messed up feet, and this leads you to conclude that used shoes are dangerous. Since you admit you haven't read any published studies on the topic, and since I assume you don't go around surveying random people on the street about their shoe buying habits, you can't have any idea how many people wear used shoes and therefore what percentage suffer complications. 

Nobody is saying you haven't seen what you've seen. Your experience just doesn't comport with most of our experiences, and in the absence of reliable data one anecdote is as good as another. So when you offer your professional opinion--and since you're an expert your opinion has a lot of weight--those of us whose experience is different just feel the need to speak up for the other side. 

Do we think you're ridiculous for saying you'd never let anyone in your family wear used shoes? Not really. No more ridiculous than the dentist who ALWAYS makes his kids wear a mouthguard when they play sports or the emergency room doctor who has a conniption when his brother buys a motorcyle. You're just making your choices based on your experience, and we all do that. It's just when you start telling us that we shouldn't wear used shoes, or play basketball without a mouthpiece, or ride a motorcyle, that we get a bit defensive.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

I'm going to make this relatively quick because I simply don't have the time for this nonsense anymore. I'm really tired of being misquoted and having my words twisted into comments I've never made.

Despite me stating dozens and dozens of times that the practice of wearing used shoes will rarely cause serious problems, but instead may cause some preventable problems, I'm always quoted as TELLING everyone not to engage in this practice. Not true, I've simply made my observation and recommendations. I don't tell adults what to do, I only provide my opinion.

Nor have I EVER implied that everyone ought to take my advice and live by it because I'm the expert. If you're insecure and feel that way, that's simply your problem, but I'd like to know when you became everyone's spokes-person.

I'm not going to comment on the remainder of your insults about your thought that I'm "apparently ignorant of the possible presence of significant cofounders".

I'm done with this and done with providing advice on this site UNLESS I'm specifically asked, because as I was once told, but wasn't smart enough to follow:

Unless asked, I'm no longer providing advice because wise men don't need it and fools won't listen.


----------



## YoungClayB (Nov 16, 2009)

This thread makes me want to cut my OWN leg off...

Seriously folks. I don't see what all the ruckus is about. There is no "right" answer here. If you are grossed out by used shoes, then don't wear them. If you are in the camp that thinks that quality used shoes are a bargain, then wear them with pride for pete's sake. Why do you need the approval of random people from an Internet forum to do so.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Doc, I apologize for misconstruing your proffered advice, and I sincerely intended no insult at all. What I said there was clearly poorly phrased, and I'm going to edit my post to leave that offensive comment out altogether. 

As I said before, I respect your expertise, and I'd be the last person to question the truth of what you say.


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

DocD said:


> I'm going to make this relatively quick because I simply don't have the time for this nonsense anymore. I'm really tired of being misquoted and having my words twisted into comments I've never made.
> 
> Despite me stating dozens and dozens of times that the practice of wearing used shoes will rarely cause serious problems, but instead may cause some preventable problems, I'm always quoted as TELLING everyone not to engage in this practice. Not true, I've simply made my observation and recommendations. I don't tell adults what to do, I only provide my opinion.
> 
> ...


And there you have it. I hope those of you who insisted on badgering the good doctor are proud of yourselves. You could have stated your opinion, _as your opinion and nothing else_, and left it at that, could you not?!

Once again, it would seem that those who appear to have loud mouths and narrow minds have managed to ruin something for everyone else. (No wonder the world is in such disarray.)

I would like to remind everyone that (as per the rules) this is a gentleman's (and ladies') forum. 
Sadly, there has been some very ungentlemanly behavior in this thread. 
AAAC stands out for its civility and I, for one, hope that it will remain that way.

If you feel a need to leave your manners behind and take out your aggressions on internet strangers, there are quite a number of sites that welcome that sort of behavior.
Here, we have the opportunity to practice civility.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

Could someone please PM me and let me know if Doc posted a photo of the foot amputation? Quite honestly, I'm not a doctor, and seeing a foot amputation, even just a photo, will probably make me puke. I'd really like to read pages 3 and 4 of this thread, but I have no desire to have a bodiless foot pop up on my screen.

andy b.

PS - and before you even think of it, DON'T PM me a photo of a chopped off foot!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I will try treading lightly here.

First off, I would like to say that this forum is a godsend. Manners and civility here stand out as compared to other corners of the Internet. I treasure that. I really do. And I have learned more here than I have in all my years of alleged academic endeavors.

And that said...

Can we please all get along?

This might seem silly coming from someone who is, more than arguably, an instigator in this mess. But, really and truly, this, upon reflection, is not a spat worth having.

I disagree to my core with what the doctor and certain others have said here. But it is not a winnable debate, from either side. Some folks think used shoes are icky. I can understand that. Some folks insist used shoes invite amputation. I won't go there, at least not now, and hopefully, not anymore, except to say that some folks, including myself, see no problems with used shoes.

Point is, let's just leave it be, because it can never be solved. I will keep on doing what I have always done, others will do as they see--no pun intended--fit. At the risk of p---ing anyone off, I would ask, again, this: Unless someone has a why-do-my-feet-hurt question or complaint, can we please, please, please not go through this anymore?

From the standpoint of a used-shoer, it really is offensive and hurtful to hear from new shoers who say what has been said on this thread. I'll stop there.

Peace?



Checkerboard 13 said:


> And there you have it. I hope those of you who insisted on badgering the good doctor are proud of yourselves. You could have stated your opinion, _as your opinion and nothing else_, and left it at that, could you not?!
> 
> Once again, it would seem that those who appear to have loud mouths and narrow minds have managed to ruin something for everyone else. (No wonder the world is in such disarray.)
> 
> ...


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

oh come on, am I the only one that thinks there's something strange about purchasing 30 pairs of used shoes?

Why not just save up your cash, purchase 5 or 6 good quality, BRAND NEW shoes and call it a day?


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

I only wish DocD commented on the microwave.


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

Taken Aback said:


> I only wish DocD commented on the microwave.


yeah, that was pretty hilarious.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

An interesting question. I probably wouldn't need any more than five or six myself and you can get them for less than full price, if you don't mind them being less than perfect, from the Allen Edmonds Shoe Bank.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

sirchandler said:


> oh come on, am I the only one that thinks there's something strange about purchasing 30 pairs of used shoes?
> 
> Why not just save up your cash, purchase 5 or 6 good quality, BRAND NEW shoes and call it a day?


30 pairs of used shoes, I can get my mind around. 5 or 6 pairs of brand new shoes, ditto. But the suggestion to "call it a day" and by implication be _done thinking about shoes_--now there's a truly upsetting thought. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## msphotog (Jul 5, 2006)

I know I'm late to this party, and the Doc's comments have been argued to death, but I have no opinion myself except to say that I've sold used AEs on Ebay and made pretty good money, considering what I paid! In response to the OP, I would say, having recently sold 2 pairs of Polo's that they are absolutely authentic, but that I've never seen AE use "Cat's Paw" half soles. I would surmise that they've been soled by a local cobbler. Also, my shoes were purchased in 1982 or so, and I wore the crap out of them until a couple of years ago. The black pair I wore more often, and I had them re-crafted by AE a year ago. The result was astounding, bringing the shoes back to only slightly worn, but with no marks on the soles. I really haven't found the corrected grain to be a negative, and they do hold a shine forever!
BTW, I think that the OP's shoes are newer than mine because AE wasn't using the logoed cloth inserts in side the shoes when I bought mine. They are just stamped
My advice, FWIW? Have them recraftred by AE, and if they aren't up to your specifications, you can sell them on Ebay for mor than you paid. I got $160. for both of mine(Black and Burgundy and Black). I only paid $52.50 a pair, new...I'm just syain'


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Taken Aback said:


> I only wish DocD commented on the microwave.


Actually microwaving non-food items can be quite an exciting subject in itself.

Even Yahoo Answers has covered this subject.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080805154142AAmSvXn
Can you microwave shoes?

_Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
i have done it only for 5 seconds. depends on shoe type. i tried leather and it was not pretty...it burnt it and caused a very bad odor. good thing there is ferbreze eh?lol_

If the shoes had NO metal parts like eyelets, nails, staples, etc., and wasn't made from leather, it probably could be done. Any metal parts in a microwave oven makes for quite a spectacular lightning and plasma show. Look on Youtube for people microwaving CDs, lightbulbs, iPhones, etc.

Thing with buying non-footwear items second hand, they can be put in the washing machine or dry-cleaned, to sterilise any nasties from the previous owner which might be lurking in them. I have no problems with wearing used clothes at all provided they've been completely washed or dry-cleaned, but I would never buy used shoes.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Orgetorix said:


> Doc, I apologize for misconstruing your proffered advice, and I sincerely intended no insult at all. What I said there was clearly poorly phrased, and I'm going to edit my post to leave that offensive comment out altogether.
> 
> As I said before, I respect your expertise, and I'd be the last person to question the truth of what you say.


Thank you, apology accepted.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Taken Aback said:


> I only wish DocD commented on the microwave.


Actually, I was going to comment on the microwave, but unfortunately got sidetracked. That WAS one of the funniest posts I've yet to see on this forum.

One caution: When you microwave your shoes/sneakers to rid them of "organisms" make sure they don't have metal eyelets and PLEASE make sure they don't have steel shank!!!


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

DocD said:


> Actually, I was going to comment on the microwave, but unfortunately got sidetracked. That WAS one of the funniest posts I've yet to see on this forum.
> 
> One caution: When you microwave your shoes/sneakers to rid them of "organisms" make sure they don't have metal eyelets and PLEASE make sure they don't have steel shank!!!


+1

Excellent advice from the Doc as usual.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

Yes, those situations clearly call for an autoclave.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Just want to mention that I am a doctor well into year 3 of a single-blind controlled study on feet. Well, shoes and shoe trees. I have black, brown and merlot PAs worn not daily, but in a strict rotation. On pair has never seen a shoe-tree. One pair gets a tree only on the right, the other gets the other tree only on the left. So far I can't see any difference--but at 5 years I'll publish pictures and let members decide which shoes got the trees. Granted it's a small study and applicable only to my feet. But how else to try to answer the question of what good do shoe-trees do?


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Wow. I walked away from this forum for a few days expecting this thread to disappear and find instead that it's gone in all sorts of interesting directions.

The logic for used shoes is easy, especially for those of us with AE tastes and DSW budgets: I have a hole in my wardrobe that I can fill by spending $250-$300, or I can spend $50-$100. And we all know that these shoes are well enough made that they can be second-hand yet still have years of life in them. So, with Doc's warnings in mind, why not pick up a few pairs for occasional wear?

By the way, I've been wearing the Polos that started this mess, and they're comfortable and decent enough looking to have a spot in my rotation for daily work day wear, when I'm not meeting with clients our otherwise out to impress people (for that, I have my Hales and my Park Avenues to wear with my suits). Of course, with my sweaty feet, I think I've already done more harm to the Polos than was done in the previous three decades of their life. Now I'm looking for just the right shade of brown polish...

As for the used Wilberts I picked up, the problem there is that the crease hits my foot in the wrong place. Either the shoe leather will adapt and, in effect, crease where I need it to crease, or I will end up having to replace them with new shoes. I hope they adapt, though. They're in great shape and well worth the $50 I paid for them. On the other hand, if they don't adapt, I'll finally have the excuse I need to go buy those Oak Street trail shoes I've been drooling over.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

cdavant said:


> Just want to mention that I am a doctor well into year 3 of a single-blind controlled study on feet. Well, shoes and shoe trees. I have black, brown and merlot PAs worn not daily, but in a strict rotation. On pair has never seen a shoe-tree. One pair gets a tree only on the right, the other gets the other tree only on the left. So far I can't see any difference--but at 5 years I'll publish pictures and let members decide which shoes got the trees. Granted it's a small study and applicable only to my feet. But how else to try to answer the question of what good do shoe-trees do?


Yes, but there are those on this site that will insist on a DOUBLE blind study that is peer reviewed and published prior to having any validity regarding your shoe tree data, and will still find your comments offensive. And of course don't even consider mentioning wood vs. plastic at risk of offending those who can't afford wood (though there is always the chance they can purchase used shoe trees).


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

DocD said:


> ...though there is always the chance they can purchase used shoe trees).


Is that really a good idea?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9458628

EDIT: Just so we're clear, that was tongue-in-cheek. I'm surprised there's no emoticon for this.


----------



## Barrister & Solicitor (Jan 10, 2007)

A happy medium should apply: metal shoe trees!


----------



## spielerman (Jul 21, 2007)

MikeDT said:


> Actually microwaving non-food items can be quite an exciting subject in itself.
> 
> Even Yahoo Answers has covered this subject.
> https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080805154142AAmSvXn
> ...


Can you imagine with the typical dress shoe that has any nails or a metal shank in them throwing them in the microwave? Look out below! or Above....


----------



## g.michael (Jul 9, 2010)

Just saw this thread but am confused--are there fake Allen Edmonds on Ebay, and if not, where can I find some? I'll pay top dollar!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

g.michael said:


> Just saw this thread but am confused--are there fake Allen Edmonds on Ebay, and if not, where can I find some? I'll pay top dollar!


Sorry, but the consensus is that there are no fake Allen Edmonds on Ebay. I jumped to conclusions because I had unwittingly bought a 30-yr old pair of shoes made with a different kind of leather than what I have come to expect with AE and with various details that are different from those one finds on contemporary AE models.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

g.michael said:


> Just saw this thread but am confused--are there fake Allen Edmonds on Ebay, and if not, where can I find some? I'll pay top dollar!


Are you joking or serious??? If you're serious, why would you want to purchase a pair of fake Allen Edmonds? I purchase AE not only for the style, but for the quality and comfort, something I doubt that you would find in a "fake".


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Gents, don't feed the trolls.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

msphotog said:


> Have them recraftred by AE, and if they aren't up to your specifications, you can sell them on Ebay for mor than you paid. I got $160. for both of mine(Black and Burgundy and Black). I only paid $52.50 a pair, new...I'm just syain'


Dang. My two pair(same colors) have been worn maybe 40 times (mostly on carpet) and are in great shape - I may have to sell mine.


----------



## calfnkip (Mar 21, 2011)

Rambler, spielerman, ada8356:

Thanks for the kind words about my post. I'll go back to lurking for now, but I'll pop up again if I think I have anything to contribute.


----------



## g.michael (Jul 9, 2010)

g.michael said:


> Just saw this thread but am confused--are there fake Allen Edmonds on Ebay, and if not, where can I find some? I'll pay top dollar!


Actually, I meant I'll pay top dollar for USED fake Allen Edmonds!

Seriously, I thought a joke was needed after the thread was hijacked by DocD's non-hijacking post. I am curious though, is 5 pages a record for a thread started by somebody who asked a simple question, who then got a satisfactory answer, and then tangential issues/pissy debates took over the thing? Maybe Mac could post one of his beautiful and surreal shell shoe pictures as a propoer way of quietly putting this pig thread out of its misery.:icon_peaceplease:
Of course, arguing and pissy debate is fun too....


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

calfnkip said:


> Rambler, spielerman, ada8356:
> 
> Thanks for the kind words about my post. I'll go back to lurking for now, but I'll pop up again if I think I have anything to contribute.


Please don't just lurk. It is helpful posts like yours that make this site so much better than that other clothing site where everyone cusses each other out in every other post for no reason.


----------



## spielerman (Jul 21, 2007)

g.michael said:


> Actually, I meant I'll pay top dollar for USED fake Allen Edmonds!
> 
> Seriously, I thought a joke was needed after the thread was hijacked by DocD's non-hijacking post. I am curious though, is 5 pages a record for a thread started by somebody who asked a simple question, who then got a satisfactory answer, and then tangential issues/pissy debates took over the thing? Maybe Mac could post one of his beautiful and surreal shell shoe pictures as a propoer way of quietly putting this pig thread out of its misery.:icon_peaceplease:
> Of course, arguing and pissy debate is fun too....


^1 Got to say, I logged in today, saw this near the top of the new posts, and said wow, this is still going on? Nice to see the appreciation for the tweener conversation about making of leather, may we all look at corrected grain with a little more understanding... all shoes cannot be shell...


----------



## TieBar (May 31, 2011)

I don't have a problem with resale but, I draw the line on used shoes. Although Allen Edmonds made me think about an exception.  I would rather find an online coupon, a sale on a web site or other ways to get the shoes I wanted without severing a limb. Does anyone have any feedback on shoemall.com to offer? Can anyone share some links to killer deals on quality footwear? Thanks.


----------



## Avers (Feb 28, 2006)

Those are just older AE shoes, I've seen them before - they are 100% legit!


----------

