# Current Quality of Cheaney Shoes ?



## malioil (Aug 1, 2013)

Hello all, 

My first post! 

I wanted to ask a few questions- granted, there have been previous posts on the same subject but the answer does seem to change as the years go by so I thought I'd ask to get a current take on the matter. 

I own a Tricker's Keswick country shoe that I am very fond of, as well as a Crockett & Jones Tetbury in suede that I find very comfortable. I have very recently started to garner an interest in the world of shoes. 

I have been looking for a country boot and both the Tricker's Stow and C&J Islay have taken up my fancy. Unfortunately, after Tricker's price hike yesterday (Stow's are now £390), and the Islays retailing at £425, I began looking at more affordable options, as saving £100 would be a meaningful (I am a student). 

Cheaney offers some interesting shoes, and I have found their prices to be comfortably affordable, at £275-£299 for the styles that I have liked- namely the Fiennes and Tweed boots. I was wondering what your take would be on their quality, and how far off the mark would they be from C&J/Trickers quality (benchgrade). Also, I have taken a liking to their Edwin spectator model, also from the Country collection. While I understand that Cheaney's Imperial collection is looked on with high regard, how would you rate the rest of their collection? 

Thanks a lot!


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

While I can't comment about the rest of Cheaney's range, I do own a pair of Herring Henleys, which are made by Cheaney, and look to be pretty much a Herring branded version of the Cheaney Edwin. 
Bought them for my wedding, and they languished in the wardrobe for quite a while after the big day, but this summer I've got them out again, and might even chance wearing them tomorrow if the rain holds off. 
I think the quality is very good.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

As Odradek, I only own Cheaneys which were produced for Herring and I consider that they are remarkably good quality for the money.

In fact I would go so far as to say these (Cheaney for Herring) https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...rring-Wilson-Chelsea-Boot-Review-(One-Year-On) are by far the best quality footwear in proportion to the cost I have ever had the pleasure to wear.

The quality of these https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...yeing-Maintaining-shoes&p=1373458#post1373458 (also Cheaney for Herring) were very highly complimented by Edwards of Manchester when I dropped them off for a re-sole recently.

You may also wish to consider Loakes 1880 range, which for a sub £200 shoe are rather pleasing.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

It about 20 years since I last had a pair of Cheaneys, and they were good quality then - nice calf leather uppers, somewhere between Loakes' better shoes and Crockett & Jones perhaps. 

I found some Cheaney veldtschoen in a shop in the Cotswolds recently - I thought they seemed attractive and well made, but not quite a heavy as I would have expected for that type of shoe. They were much lighter than a similar pair of Sargents that I have. I don't know whether that's good or bad.


----------



## Django57 (Jan 19, 2013)

Would also be interested in feedback on Cheaney shoes quality , i had planned in visiting Northampton earlier this year but had to be delayed will now be there in September and plan to visit Cheaney and a couple of other shops , i have nearly decided on the Cheaney Deal shoe .


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

I have several pairs of Cheaney shoes and bought my last pair last year. They offer solid value for money, especially (as ever) when bought on their seasonal sales.

They are well constructed with good soles and are comfortable to wear from the off. I am hard on my shoes and they withstand this well - a couple of pairs I have worn regularly are only now at the point of needing refurbishment after 5 years. The main issue that lets them down in my opinion is the quality of their calf leather, which is good rather than great. This is true across the range, including the Imperial. But there also is not a shoe maker _in that price range _that offers great calf leather, so you pays your money and takes your choice. I have been happy with mine and have been a regular customer.


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

I only have one pair of Cheaneys - the Manchester slip on. The fit is excellent and they look fantastic. Based on the Manchester, I think C. makes a slightly larger fitting shoe, which with all my feet issues, is a good thing. A+++ in my book.


----------



## TimHardy (Feb 22, 2010)

My Cheaneys are around 15 years old and still look great.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

The general opinion here on British-made shoes, judging by past posts, is that with all the name manufacturers, from Edward Green to Barkers, you pretty much get what you pay for. If a manufacturer is charging £300 for his shoes, you will get a £300 pair of shoes. It will be better than someone's offering at £250 and worse than someone else's at £350. The only general exception is that Church's commands a modest premium owing to brand recognition. The curve of quality v. price isn't straight - the difference between a £200 pair and a £300 pair will be greater than the difference between a £300 pair and a £400 pair, etc. But for what you're comfortable paying, you'll get a shoe appropriate to that price - you won't find that for your £300 one manufacturer is obviously better, another obviously worse. The same cannot be said for the shoe industry in other countries, to the best of my knowledge.


----------



## nateo (Feb 27, 2013)

@ Stephen, Church's has a number of "low cost" offerings (~GBP 290.00) in their city line that use corrected leather and linen linings. For circa 250 pounds, you can get non-corrected grain and full-leather linings from Cheaney. I think there's more than a "modest premium" for the Church's name.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

nateo said:


> @ Stephen, Church's has a number of "low cost" offerings (~GBP 290.00) in their city line that use corrected leather and linen linings. For circa 250 pounds, you can get non-corrected grain and full-leather linings from Cheaney. I think there's more than a "modest premium" for the Church's name.


I quite like a linen lining, at least for the vamp - in no way is it inferior to lining leather.

However, if you are suggesting that Church's are over-priced relative to other Northampton shoes, I would agree with you.


----------



## nateo (Feb 27, 2013)

Langham, I'm still a shoe neophyte, but it does seem to me that Church's is overpriced, compared to other Northampton shoemakers. 

I know a linen lining used to be typical for bespoke shoes. It is definitely cheaper, whether it's inferior or not depends on the application, I guess. If you're a shoemaker, and you pick linen *only* or *primarily* because it's cheaper, then let's call a spade a spade; it's a way to make a "cheaper" shoe.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

nateo said:


> Langham, I'm still a shoe neophyte, but it does seem to me that Church's is overpriced, compared to other Northampton shoemakers.
> 
> I know a linen lining used to be typical for bespoke shoes. It is definitely cheaper, whether it's inferior or not depends on the application, I guess. If you're a shoemaker, and you pick linen *only* or *primarily* because it's cheaper, then let's call a spade a spade; it's a way to make a "cheaper" shoe.


For a shoemaker such as Church's (or Cheney for that matter), the actual difference in cost of making a shoe with a linen lining rather than a leather lining would be very small indeed - a few pennies per pair of shoes. The perception among the shoe-buying public, however, is that linen is a cheap substitute. I find there are some advantages to a linen lining - it can keep the foot drier, for one thing. The cost/quality of the outer leather, and how selectively* that is used, are the really important variables.

* By which I mean how much care is taken over cutting out the parts of the upper so that grain is correctly aligned, etc, etc, as opposed to the converse consideration of achieving as little wastage as possible.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

One generally seems to pay about £100 more for Church's shoes than Cheaney. Lets make no mistake, Church's shoes are considerably better and I say that as a regular customer of both companies. The upper leather is more substantial and of a higher quality, especially the calf. The sole unit and welt stitching are of a higher quality. The after sales support is better. There is a better range of width fittings and (although this is less true than it used to be) a wider range of colour choices for each model. The styling is of course in the eye of the beholder, Church's shoes tend to be substantial rather than sleek.

The corrected grain 'polished binder' are options available for people who want them. I don't like corrected leather so I just choose the calf leather - the price is usually the same.


How much of that extra £100 is a tithe paid to Prada and for the Church's advertising budget is a matter for debate. However I would contend that for your extra money you do indeed get a better shoe.


----------



## nateo (Feb 27, 2013)

Haffman said:


> One generally seems to pay about £100 more for Church's shoes than Cheaney. Lets make no mistake, Church's shoes are considerably better and I say that as a regular customer of both companies. The upper leather is more substantial and of a higher quality, especially the calf. The sole unit and welt stitching are of a higher quality. The after sales support is better. There is a better range of width fittings and (although this is less true than it used to be) a wider range of colour choices for each model. The styling is of course in the eye of the beholder, Church's shoes tend to be substantial rather than sleek.
> 
> The corrected grain 'polished binder' are options available for people who want them. I don't like corrected leather so I just choose the calf leather - the price is usually the same.


Does your opinion of Church's shoes include their City line I was talking about?

Not to pick nits, but all of the Cheaney "Classic" line cost 240 GBP, except two that cost 250 GBP. Church's "City" line costs 290 GBP, and their "Classic" line costs 380 or 390 GBP. Cheaney's "City" line costs 205 GBP. So the Cheaney > Church's gap is 85 GBP on their "City" lines, and the gap between their Classic lines is 140-150 GBP.

I was seriously considering picking up something from Church's city line, but then I realized they were correct grain, and read unflattering reviews about the quality. So I was left wondering, why should I pick Church's City line over Cheaney's City line?


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

nateo said:


> Does your opinion of Church's shoes include their City line I was talking about?
> 
> Not to pick nits, but all of the Cheaney "Classic" line cost 240 GBP, except two that cost 250 GBP. Church's "City" line costs 290 GBP, and their "Classic" line costs 380 or 390 GBP. Cheaney's "City" line costs 205 GBP. So the Cheaney > Church's gap is 85 GBP on their "City" lines, and the gap between their Classic lines is 140-150 GBP.
> 
> I was seriously considering picking up something from Church's city line, but then I realized they were correct grain, and read unflattering reviews about the quality. So I was left wondering, why should I pick Church's City line over Cheaney's City line?


I was comparing Church's custom grade to Cheaney as these are the shoes I have experience with. On Herring's website the Cheaney's seem to be £245-£299 (or up to £325 for the ones made for Herring) and the Church's £300-£430. This is what I was basing my comments on but I am happy to concede the difference is more like £100-£150.

There are a lot of Church's haters on these boards so I would be cautious about rejecting the City line shoes out of hand. They are also often available more inexpensively on sale. When I've seen them in the flesh they've seemed OK but I don't own any. But if I were in your 'shoes' I agree I would take Cheaney over the City line, but would also not feel suckered by parting with the extra cash for the Church's CG.


----------



## nateo (Feb 27, 2013)

Thanks for the advice! 

I'm not a hater, I'm just trying to figure out what's going on with Church's. I'm all for paying more for quality, as long as I'm actually getting quality. 

The Church's Custom Grade are really hard for me to justify buying right now, since my office is business casual, and I don't think even the CEO wears better than $100 shoes to work. 

It's not an emergency or anything, so I'll probably just wait until I can find a good deal on either, and decide at that point.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

nateo said:


> Thanks for the advice!
> 
> I'm not a hater, I'm just trying to figure out what's going on with Church's. I'm all for paying more for quality, as long as I'm actually getting quality.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. No need to let the best be the enemy of the good *. A carefully chosen, well fitting and well nurtured pair of Cheaneys offers - as has previously been said - a very pleasing balance of bang for your buck.

I am definitely in favour of your mission to avoid corrected grain. It's not to my taste either, although some like it.

* = Just using an expression - not to be taken to imply that I view Church's as 'the best' shoemaker!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

I would consider the AS Hannover as well:

Available here:
https://www.pediwear.co.uk/alfred-sargent/country-collection/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

I own a pair of city line Churchs, I quite like them. The ordinary Churchs are better though. 

I think you pretty much get what you pay for with Churchs, though I've generally bought mine on sale. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2


----------



## nateo (Feb 27, 2013)

I found a pair of used Cheaney's for about $60 on ebay. I emailed the factory to find out how old they are, I have no idea. The quality of the leather is noticeably better than on my AE Holbrooks, especially the lining. It's much softer and very supple. I think the stitching in marginally neater as well, FWIW. They're really beautiful shoes.

The weirdest thing, though, is the sizing. My heel-to-ball measurement, per a Brannock device, is a US 10.5, my length is a US 11. I've read it's common to size down when going to UK sizing. This particular last is marked UK 11, but the heel-to-ball dimensions are perfect for me, and slightly shorter than the AE last, making a better fit overall. The total length is a bit longer, but all the length is in the toe box, in front of the wide part of the vamp.


----------

