# Eastland camp moc's made in USA



## fishertw (Jan 27, 2006)

I was in Portland Maine over the weekend and saw a 55th anniversary handsewn, four eyelet, camp moccasin as well as a chukka boot that Eastland is now producing in limited quantities and, as of yesterday, has on their website. The camp moc's are being made in black, brown, olive, navy and a rough out leather. The quality of the shoe appears to be superior to any boat shoe/canoe moc/camp moc that I've seen in twenty years or so. They are made in Maine and are listed on the Eastland web site at eastlandshoe.com. The price is high but the quality seems to be better than anything I've seen on the market recently.
Just an observation.
Tom


----------



## unmodern (Aug 10, 2009)

I'm all for buying quality when it makes sense, but (just in terms of quality, not ethics) why would you spend so much on a disposable shoe? I'm just honestly wondering. The sole on that shoe isn't going to last significantly longer than the one on my $15 Bass blucher mocs.


----------



## Ripley (Oct 19, 2010)

I just can't do it either, unmodern. I can't even get myself to look at pennies as anything other than disposable (which is why I'm wearing Weejuns as I type this).


----------



## frosejr (Mar 27, 2010)

Ripley said:


> I just can't do it either, unmodern. I can't even get myself to look at pennies as anything other than disposable (which is why I'm wearing Weejuns as I type this).


OUCH. I can't justify $275 for mocs. I'd love to support USA workers, etc, but wow.


----------



## Ripley (Oct 19, 2010)

I never said anything about 'lov(ing) to support USA workers', frosejr. Since you bring it up I gladly buy U.S. made goods over their competitors when they are reasonably priced for their value (like Brooks' U.S. made shirts for example). 

I don't just give companies my money because they make their products in the U.S. however. When one can buy 4 pairs of Bean's made in El Salvador mocs for the price of 1 pair of U.S. made mocs (all of which are likely to last about the same amount of time seeing as how high the quality still is on Bean's mocs and considering they are just mocs) I start to question the U.S. made company's responsibility to me as a consumer.


----------



## frosejr (Mar 27, 2010)

Ripley said:


> I never said anything about 'lov(ing) to support USA workers', frosejr.


Didn't say you did, just mentioning that I like to when it makes sense.



> Since you bring it up I gladly buy U.S. made goods over their competitors when they are reasonably priced for their value (like Brooks' U.S. made shirts for example).
> 
> I don't just give companies my money because they make their products in the U.S. however. When one can buy 4 pairs of Bean's made in El Salvador mocs for the price of one pair of U.S. made mocs (all of which are likely to last about the same amount of time seeing as how high the quality still is on Bean's mocs and considering they are just mocs) I start to question the U.S. made company's responsibility to me as a consumer.


I agree with you on this principle. I was thinking about this last night as I put on an LL Bean casual shirt that I love, well cut for me, quality fabric, and noticed that it was made in China. I can't believe that a company couldn't make camp mocs, pennies, etc in the US for $100 or less, have them be decent-to-good quality, and make a worthwhile profit.


----------



## Ripley (Oct 19, 2010)

Sorry, frosejr. I read your comment as sarcastic (I'm a poor judge of it in print) 

Yeah, it's sad in a way (for the Made in U.S. position) how well made (or even better made) so much of the other stuff is. Manufacturers seem to think we'll just buy that tag (perhaps we do too readily).


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

The price of $275 makes them more expensive than similar shoes from Quoddy, Russell, or Oak Street Bootmakers. They're even more expensive than Alden's wonderful boat shoe! Has anyone actually seen and tried on a pair of the Eastlands? Although I have my doubts, it's entirely possible that their quality greatly exceeds anyone else's product and that the shoes might actually be worth the the money. . . at least to someone who wants a pair of premium camp shoes. It wouldn't be that hard to surpass some of these brands (like Quoddy), IMHO. 

I agree that LL Bean delivers an excellent, very wearable 4-eyelet camp shoe at a great price.


----------



## frosejr (Mar 27, 2010)

Ripley said:


> Sorry, frosejr. I read your comment as sarcastic (I'm a poor judge of it in print)


I agree it's often hard to tell. No harm no foul.



> Yeah, it's sad in a way (for the Made in U.S. position) how well made (or even better made) so much of the other stuff is. Manufacturers seem to think we'll just buy that tag (perhaps we do too readily).


I think we do. I would much prefer to support US-based manufacturers. But one example of a business that uses "Made in USA" as a selling point is American Apparel. When you read anything about the company, though, it's mostly about how vile a human the owner is, or how they man sweatshops in LA with illegals who don't have any recourse because of their status. If that's what Made in USA has come to, it's a sad day.

My Bean camp mocs were made in El Salvador, and they're doing quite well.


----------



## frosejr (Mar 27, 2010)

bd79cc said:


> the shoes might actually be worth the the money. . . at least to someone who wants a pair of premium camp shoes.


I guess the greater question is, who needs a pair of premium camp shoes? They're CAMP SHOES!


----------



## Charles Saturn (May 27, 2010)

Eastland is said to be releasing some new loafers in the spring that look good. Can't tell what type sole they have though.

You can see them here. https://www.ivy-style.com/show-time-capsule-and-designer-forum-wrap-up.html#more-1183

Ps, I tried to just insert the photo, but I was told the remote file is too large. Am doing something wrong?


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

frosejr said:


> how they man sweatshops in LA with illegals who don't have any recourse because of their status. .


One means to acquire status would be to enter the country legally.


----------



## frosejr (Mar 27, 2010)

godan said:


> One means to acquire status would be to enter the country legally.


Agreed.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

frosejr said:


> I guess the greater question is, who needs a pair of premium camp shoes? They're CAMP SHOES!


Totally agree! When you can buy a pair of top quality A.E. dress shoes for just a little more (also made in the USA) I don't see how anyone could possibly build _that_ much "quality" into a camp moc. MY Beans and Sperry's feel great thanks. Sounds like a rip off to me...sold for snob appeal.


----------



## palmettoking (Jan 2, 2010)

I don't see what the big deal about the price is. Are they expensive? Yes. Are they worth it? Not for me to find out. But the prices are roughly in line with Quoddy, who everyone seems to swoon over (or used to). I'm not gonna buy 'em but that niche of handsewn premium camp mocs isn't something brand new and worth getting upset over.


----------



## maximar (Jan 11, 2010)

Eastland has to creep in and not shock people with these prices. I bought a pair of mocs from them this summer for $29 and they were great. Now why would I jump to $250? Bec. I loved the $29 pair? 

I would go for an Alden for that price already. Alden's go for $209 sometimes.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

bd79cc said:


> ...It wouldn't be that hard to surpass some of these brands (like Quoddy), IMHO.
> ......


LOL. How's the fishing this morning? Are they (we) biting?


----------



## fishertw (Jan 27, 2006)

bd79cc said:


> The price of $275 makes them more expensive than similar shoes from Quoddy, Russell, or Oak Street Bootmakers. They're even more expensive than Alden's wonderful boat shoe! Has anyone actually seen and tried on a pair of the Eastlands? Although I have my doubts, it's entirely possible that their quality greatly exceeds anyone else's product and that the shoes might actually be worth the the money. . . at least to someone who wants a pair of premium camp shoes. It wouldn't be that hard to surpass some of these brands (like Quoddy), IMHO.
> 
> I agree that LL Bean delivers an excellent, very wearable 4-eyelet camp shoe at a great price.


I do own both Quoddy and Russell shoes as well as Orvis Gokey boat shoes which are nearly indestructable. Quoddy fell apart quickly and the company has large issues with quality control as has been documented on this forum frequently. Russell is heavy and is rough in it's sewing and construction. I did see and try on the Eastland but the store in Portland did not have my size in stock. They seem to run about 1/2 size large. From what I saw across the entire line that they are rolling out, they seem far superior to most casual shoes on the market today. I'll likely buy them when my size is available. Nice to know I won't have competition for size from most here.
Tom


----------



## C. Sharp (Dec 18, 2008)

The case of the Bean Camp and Blucher is a subject that Eagle seems to talk me off the ledge about, you can see old posts for formal confirmation of this. I have been trained like clock work every so many years to buy a pair of each of these shoes. Evey time time it is the same range of emotions and I wonder how they are ever going to look good. I then wear the hell out of them and they become respectable. I am afraid one day I am going to open the box and be looking at the equivalent of two hollowed out two litter bottles. I feel like I am being killed by price point. The price has been the same for years but they have moved to off shoring and cutting corners etc. I have not moved on yet but I wonder when or if I will or if I will be able to. It is a bit of a curse remembering how good these shoes used to be.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

C. Sharp said:


> The case of the Bean Camp and Blucher is a subject that Eagle seems to talk me off the ledge about, you can see old posts for formal confirmation of this. I have been trained like clock work every so many years to buy a pair of each of these shoes. Evey time time it is the same range of emotions and I wonder how they are ever going to look good. I then wear the hell out of them and they become respectable. I am afraid one day I am going to open the box and be looking at the equivalent of two hollowed out two litter bottles. I feel like I am being killed by price point. The price has been the same for years but they have moved to off shoring and cutting corners etc. I have not moved on yet but I wonder when or if I will or if I will be able to. It is a bit of a curse remembering how good these shoes used to be.


After years (actually decades) of Sperry's I took delivary of a pair of LL Bean Blucher Mocs a couple of month's ago. With a couple of coupons, I got them for $49 without tax or shipping charges because I use the LL Bean Visa. Loved them from the time I put them on and am wearing and loving them right now. This, after sending back a higher-priced pair of their Bison BMs because I _didn't_ find them as comfortable. The Bisons perhaps were more impressive looking and may have lasted longer--but that's not what I'm looking for in a moc. I'm looking for pure comfort...at a reasonable price. Just _how_ are Quoddys, Russells, Eaastlands, or even the revered Alden's so much superior? I'm genuinely curious as I save my high dollar shoe spending for investment footwear that looks great, has good support, comfort/fit, and will last for years. None will ever be as comfortable however as a pair of well worn mocs or boat shoes. What _is_ the deal here?


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Salty, you're hitting on a hot mess of personal feelings, philosophy, psychology, astrology and who knows what else. If we were to talk in terms of brain scans, luxury and practicality (even when they overlap) light up different places. 

My Borrelli shirts light up the same place as my AV system does. My OCBDs light up the same place as my kitchen knives do. I consider them all luxurious, but some are principally luxurious and some are principally practical. 

When something lights up the luxury part of the brain, the list of criteria is different (or at least re-prioritized). Does if feel great? Does it look great? Is there history to the product or the brand? What's its pedigree? What does it signal about me and how does it tell my story as well as its own? These are questions that I'd be less interested in asking about my toothbrush than my watch.

Not that luxury always equates with price, but we're talking commerce. The brands you mentioned are luxury makers at this point even if they came from humble roots. 

Because of the nature of luxury goods, there's a much stronger, clearer, and more instantaneous establishment of value. You hear the exhaust note of an Aston Martin or see it move swiftly down the road and it's either worth what they're asking or it's not. But you can shop a Toyota, Ford, Hyundai, Honda, etc and have very little emotional stake in which one you choose. 

I could go on and on (especially considering my profession), but at the very least this should be..... interesting.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

^^^
I understand what you are saying Trip. A good example would be my Rolex. I've had much cheaper battery watches that probably kept better time without having to be wound and reset. In fact, the Rolex is at the jeweler's now for a minor repair and cleaning that will probably cost me more than a very good reliable non-luxury watch. Of course, I'm purely kidding you about the Borrelli shirts. The shirt looks great on you...and I understand why you would want to wear them. I'm absolutely no stranger to wearing certain items--not because anyone else would know--but because _I _felt better wearing them.

I guess I just never applied that equation to mocs and boat shoes. But, having read your comments, I do get that many people would. While I may look upon that particular item as purely functional...to other's it takes on more significance. Not unlike my Rolex vs. a Timex or a Gitman Bros. button down as opposed to a LE Hyde Park (love them both for different reasons--but realize 99.9% of people looking would never notice the difference).

Interesting, indeed. Hmmmmmm. I do enjoy our chats!


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I don't write much any more, but few things have made me want to start researching and writing like luxury and branding. There's remarkably little written on it from a psychological standpoint. Signal theory touches on it a little bit, for a principal that's so powerful in Western consumerist cultures, we have very little understanding of it and completely insufficient language with which to handle it.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Fascinating topics. Currently, in the media world, "branding" is _the_ big buzz word. Especially with the traditional media i.e. network affiliates, etc., trying to keep viewers loyal in a time when people have hundreds of viewing choices. When it comes to our advertisers, we often stress the importance of branding. But understanding it in a deeper psychological sense is not something I hear people spending much time discussing...if at all.

Like most things, the tendency is to take a complex subject and concentrate on the surface level. I agree that more time should be spent digging deeper. I find it interesting that the earliest news consultants in the television industry were sociologists and behavioralists. They were first employed to see what people wanted to watch and why. It ended up totally changing the way news was presented on television.

I'm sure the same would be true in any consumer oriented industry. Well, I guess we've strayed a bit from the original subject of camp mocs, eh?


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

frosejr said:


> I agree it's often hard to tell. No harm no foul.
> 
> I think we do. I would much prefer to support US-based manufacturers. But one example of a business that uses "Made in USA" as a selling point is American Apparel. When you read anything about the company, though, it's mostly about how vile a human the owner is, or how they man sweatshops in LA with illegals who don't have any recourse because of their status. If that's what Made in USA has come to, it's a sad day.
> 
> My Bean camp mocs were made in El Salvador, and they're doing quite well.


The company American Apparel is a sweatshop free company and nothing comes up in any press i have seen about them using sweatshop labour. https://www.americanapparel.net/contact/profile.html https://www.americanapparel.net/contact/ourworkers.html 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Apparel#Sexual_harassment_lawsuits
Perhaps you are confused with someone else, can you provide links to back up your statement?


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

My sister lived near one of their manufacturing facilities. She said it was a pretty sad state of affairs and it sounds much like the statement by frosejr. I don't know if "sweatshop" is the right term, but it's certainly not like one of camera-friendly the shop floors in Maine. Who cares anyways, the clothes are crap.


----------



## frosejr (Mar 27, 2010)

Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


> The company American Apparel is a sweatshop free company and nothing comes up in any press i have seen about them using sweatshop labour. https://www.americanapparel.net/contact/profile.html https://www.americanapparel.net/contact/ourworkers.html
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Apparel#Sexual_harassment_lawsuits
> Perhaps you are confused with someone else, can you provide links to back up your statement?


I stand corrected, and thanks. Sweatshop free indeed, and union-free as well.

https://www.shamelessmag.com/blog/2006/10/american-apparel-uncovered/

"AA is hostile to employees organizing for job security and against the speed of work and layoffs. When employees tried to form a union, the company unleashed an intimidation campaign that mirrored the aggressive union-busting techniques of other major manufacturers (this may not be surprising considering that Charney got his first real job when he crossed a picket line to work during a postal workers strike.)

"And then there are Charneys sexist antics, which have been widely reported. This includes the companys exclusive hiring practices in its stores, Charney masturbating in front of a reporter interviewing him for _Jane _magazine, and three sexual harassment suits filed against him by former female employees."

https://www.clamormagazine.org/temp/ClamorAAsection2006.pdf


----------



## C. Sharp (Dec 18, 2008)

I have not bought what people here call luxury mocs but I am sure feeling the poke in the ribs and the Devil whispering in my ear to come home. Let me layout my case. People usually have a history with a product. They are introduced to it, they accept it and build up a loyalty to that product. At some point you internalize what the product is suppose to look like,how it is constructed, who makes it and were. I would say you are not really aware of it happening. You might not be able to tick off every point of construction or fully explain how it is suppose to look aesthetically but you know what it is when you see it. At that point if you came up to me and said, I got this luxury Moc for you I would say pound sand I like the Bean model. At that moment If you said my favored product was going to change to the point that I would consider changing brands I would have been inclined to hoard all I could. This is a case of the common becoming uncommon. Rare does not always equal luxury. But rare and desirable unfortunately equals a higher price. In all honesty this is not that much different then the case of the Weejun.


Saltydog said:


> After years (actually decades) of Sperry's I took delivary of a pair of LL Bean Blucher Mocs a couple of month's ago. With a couple of coupons, I got them for $49 without tax or shipping charges because I use the LL Bean Visa. Loved them from the time I put them on and am wearing and loving them right now. This, after sending back a higher-priced pair of their Bison BMs because I _didn't_ find them as comfortable. The Bisons perhaps were more impressive looking and may have lasted longer--but that's not what I'm looking for in a moc. I'm looking for pure comfort...at a reasonable price. Just _how_ are Quoddys, Russells, Eaastlands, or even the revered Alden's so much superior? I'm genuinely curious as I save my high dollar shoe spending for investment footwear that looks great, has good support, comfort/fit, and will last for years. None will ever be as comfortable however as a pair of well worn mocs or boat shoes. What _is_ the deal here?


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

^^^
So what mocs do you wear?


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Is "luxury" really the right word? Perhaps by some dictionary definition. But in this context possibly misleading, as "luxury goods" seems to be so associated with the LVMH/Gucci/Veblen usage indicating goods meant to conspicuously signify a certain quantity of disposable income. These shoes are certainly not that.

I think the point of shoes like this is that they will not only wear well but look good when well-worn. Probably 3.5 LLBean San Salvador's will be wearable for a longer period of time than something made in Maine, but for much of the life of the former, they will either look new or look like they are falling apart. So perhaps, you will get a greater period of looking good out of the latter. But beyond this, the latter will have a quality of looking old but solid, that cannot be achieved at all with cheap shoes. Its that particular quality, unique to the well made, that might make paying the markup worth it. Certainly I feel that way about my Russell Seneca Moccasin's which have already lasted more than relative price times as long as the Timberland DongGuan's they replaced, and feel and look like old friends.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

That's rationale I can understand. Makes sense. I've got a pair of Sperry Mako's that are the most comfortable shoes I own...but after a year I wouldn't have worn them to a dog fight they were so beat up looking. I haven't had the llb blucher mocs long enough to know whether they will do the same or not. Currently, I wear them casually as well as around the house. I would pay more if I knew I could still be doing that in a year or so. Most of my cheaper mocs end up basically being house shoes after a certain point. I kinda assumed they all would and couldn't understand the rationale of paying a great deal for shoes that wouldn't be useful as both for quite some time.


----------



## C. Sharp (Dec 18, 2008)

Sorry, If I was not clear. It is still Bean. It just causes a consternation that was not present years ago. Here some great photos https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...A-trip-through-Camp-Moccasins-L.L.-Bean-style


----------



## Wisco (Dec 3, 2009)

Trip English said:


> I don't write much any more, but few things have made me want to start researching and writing like luxury and branding. There's remarkably little written on it from a psychological standpoint. Signal theory touches on it a little bit, for a principal that's so powerful in Western consumerist cultures, we have very little understanding of it and completely insufficient language with which to handle it.


As a marketing hack by day, my take is that luxury branding is all about "how the product will make you feel". The utility of the good is secondary if mentioned at all.

It all makes sense because if you start talking about attributes, you drag yourself down into direct comparison to other items in your class. The really good luxury providers ARE the class for their target market. It also eliminates a discussions about price or value as pricing for luxury goods is tied to brand value not utility. A fascinating subject for sure.

Tie to thread: I'm wearing my $69 LL Bean Camp Mocs while writing this post. The saddle color isn't bad after a coat or two of AE leather cleaner/conditioner... take a bit of the plastic-ness of the new shoe and softens the leather so it nicely conforms to your foot.


----------



## ds23pallas (Aug 22, 2006)

Trip English said:


> I don't write much any more, but few things have made me want to start researching and writing like luxury and branding. There's remarkably little written on it from a psychological standpoint. Signal theory touches on it a little bit, for a principal that's so powerful in Western consumerist cultures, we have very little understanding of it and completely insufficient language with which to handle it.


Trip,

Have you ever read "Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster"? I have not, but recently spotted it at a book shop. I would doubt very much if the author touches upon Signal Theory. Might be of interest to you nonetheless.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

frosejr said:


> I stand corrected, and thanks. Sweatshop free indeed, and union-free as well.
> 
> https://www.shamelessmag.com/blog/2006/10/american-apparel-uncovered/
> 
> ...


 This is part of the reason I don't buy anything from them anymore. The quality really sucks for the price anyway. Everything I've ever gotten from them either had some serious stitching or sizing errors. The construction is worse than a five-for-$10 pack of Hanes. Nothing is consistent colour wise either. People who've bought many t-shirts for screen printing have told me as much, too.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

ds23pallas said:


> Trip,
> 
> Have you ever read "Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster"? I have not, but recently spotted it at a book shop. I would doubt very much if the author touches upon Signal Theory. Might be of interest to you nonetheless.


I'd be very interested to read it. Anything on the subject is worth a look as I've made it my career!


----------

