# Today's installment of Shell-or-not-shell



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Just won these on Ebay--Alan McAfee, made in England. What do y'all think? I incline toward not shell, but for the price it was worth a gamble. I also bid because they were in good condition, with the white brogue holes indicating they've never been polished (and so, seldom worn).


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

I say not shell.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

I would need more views to make an educated guess. It's not that the quality of the picture is that poor but perhaps different lighting and some close ups.

Of course we'd all look for the deep creases indicative of the pony hide. In some cases the build up of polish makes it quite difficult to say even with close ups but in this case it doesn't seem as though there's too much build up of polish.

Based on the one image I'd say no but if you're really looking for an answer post some more images.

Do you have a guess based on your experience?


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

The auction just ended; that's the auction photo. I assume that when I receive them it'll be pretty clear whether they is or they ain't.


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

I'll vote yes - let's think positive! Actually, it's impossible to tell with those photos. The whitish color in the brouging, the lighter colored creases, and the distinctive glow from shoes that clearly haven't been polished incline me towards shell, but the lack of a distinctive puffiness around the laces and the faint marks on the right (in the pic) toebox push me towards not shell. I found the original auction listing and whether they're shell or not you got a great deal with those Alan McAfees (quite underrated).


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

I'm leaning slightly "yea", due to the "rumpling" rather than small wrinkles and microcreases. Pretty hard to say though. I got a pair of Florsheim shells from an Ebay auction that, I think, Pentheos alerted me to, that weren't advertised as such, so good luck, it happens.


----------



## Got Shell? (Jul 30, 2008)

Not shell. Very hard to tell since the pic shows no detal at all. I detect some find creasing. I'm about 60/40 on this. Based on the lace holes I don't think they are shell.


----------



## Markus (Sep 14, 2004)

*not shell*

but, rather, a gorgeous calf.

though the shape of the creases gives me second thoughts. they sure look like they could be shell...

ok, after reconsidering, i'm firmly undecided.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

I vote 'no' for the reasons stated above, but also because English makers rarely used shell. SONS is always fun to play, and with those handsome shoes you've won either way.


----------



## AHS (Mar 18, 2006)

I'll say "no". But who cares ... they're beautiful the way they are. 

AHS


----------



## emptym (Feb 22, 2008)

I think they are. Look forward to the verdict.


----------



## srivats (Jul 29, 2008)

Very good looking pair of shoes. However, I don't think those are shell. The color is off and the _shell look _just isn't there.

Didn't chruch's make shoes for Alan McAfee? They do work more with shell compared to other english makers.


----------



## AdamsSutherland (Jan 22, 2008)

I say "nay."

Great looking shoes nonetheless.


----------



## My Pet. A Pantsuit (Dec 25, 2008)

At a distance, they really look like it, but I'd have to go with "no" as well. I hope I'm wrong, however.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

My guess is that they are shell cordovan. For the OP's sake, I hope I am right! LOL.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

How 'bout this pair? Anyone know PRL to have sold shoes in whisky or ravello cordovan?


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

Jamgood, calling Jamgood! Polo question needs your encyclopedic knowledge.

Another impossible picture - they look like they certainly could be shell (in dark cognac like the Darlton's that has faded?), but there's no way to be certain without closer pics of the vamp.

Update: Here's a stolen pic (from a sale thread at Style Forum) of Darlton cordovan pennies that look like the same color as the shoes above.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Those look like shell to me.



Orgetorix said:


> How 'bout this pair? Anyone know PRL to have sold shoes in whisky or ravello cordovan?
> 
> https://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q163/jccavanaugh/PoloNSTs.png


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Well, I won those, too, so let's hope they are.


----------



## Mattdeckard (Mar 11, 2004)

Those wingtips are tough. With a chancery glance and thoughts on the wobbly leather and the patina... 
Hmmm ... hmmm and the color... hmmm I'll say no.


Sitting through a rainy California day,


----------



## bluenose (Nov 23, 2009)

I bought these 20 years ago in a Florsheim store in Calgary. They were around C$400 and the salesman said something about horsehide. I didn't care. I just wanted a pair of Weejuns style shoes that wouldn't fall apart in 2-3 years the way the real Bass Weejuns did. I bought them. I abused them. I had them resoled at least twice at my nearby Italian shoe repair. I'm still wearing them. I used to have them professionally shined when I worked downtown but I moved my office a few years ago and, as is evident, they haven't had professional care in quite a while. 

I think, from my observations on this forum, they are shell cordovan though I don't remember what the original colour was called. I have a pair of BB LHS #8 and they certainly don't look like that colour now and I don't think they did new. They seemed to have kept a fairly consistent deep brown. 

I leave it to more knowledgeable members of this forum – shell or not shell?


----------



## bluenose (Nov 23, 2009)

Sorry, my photos from mobile me don't seem to have shown up. This photo thing is driving me crazy. I'll try again.


----------



## bluenose (Nov 23, 2009)

Try this:

https://www.me.com/gallery/#100019/P1030284


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

I get a login screen when I click that link. Try imageshack or photobucket for hosting your pictures.


----------



## bluenose (Nov 23, 2009)

Thanks, Orgetorix, I'll try that.


----------



## bluenose (Nov 23, 2009)

This is my attempt to post photos through Imageshack. Apologies for all the messing about.

https://img693.imageshack.us/img693/60/p1030275b.jpg[/IMG]

_You need to use image tags rather than url tags to make the pics visible--AlanC_


----------



## Got Shell? (Jul 30, 2008)

THose appear to have been left out in the rain for a month. They appear to be shell.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

They look like shell. It's a shame to mistreat your shoes like that.


----------



## AdamsSutherland (Jan 22, 2008)

Pentheos said:


> They look like shell. It's a shame to mistreat your shoes like that.


Those look just as bad as my fraternity-aged Sperry's. I agree that they're shell.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

AdamsSutherland said:


> Those look just as bad as my fraternity-aged Sperry's. I agree that they're shell.


Tearing up a pair of Sperry's is one thing, shell cordovan is another. I mean, one has to wear something to frat parties, right? Something is gonna get destroyed.


----------



## bluenose (Nov 23, 2009)

Yes, I am embarrassed by the condition of these shoes. I wondered why they lasted this long. It was only after viewing this forum that I thought they were shell. I promise to take better care of my BB LHS. 

And Got Shell?, you're right. They do look like they've been left in the rain for a month. Believe me, I was reluctant to show them to the shell aficionados in the forum but I had to find out if they were the real thing as I have never seen this shoe mentioned in any of the posts here. Even in their sorry condition, they do make a case for the longevity of shell.


----------



## srivats (Jul 29, 2008)

bluenose said:


> Yes, I am embarrassed by the condition of these shoes. I wondered why they lasted this long. It was only after viewing this forum that I thought they were shell. I promise to take better care of my BB LHS.
> 
> And Got Shell?, you're right. They do look like they've been left in the rain for a month. Believe me, I was reluctant to show them to the shell aficionados in the forum but I had to find out if they were the real thing as I have never seen this shoe mentioned in any of the posts here. Even in their sorry condition, they do make a case for the longevity of shell.


Send them to forum member Nick at B. Nelson shoe repair. If anyone can rescue those, it will be them. It pains me to see shell in that condition.


----------



## bluenose (Nov 23, 2009)

Thanks, Srivats. I'll see if B. Nelson can save these.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

bluenose said:


> Thanks, Srivats. I'll see if B. Nelson can save these.


Please post pictures of them if you get them recrafted so we can all be amazed by shell's longevity and B. Nelson's skill.


----------



## well-kept (May 6, 2006)

Shoe trees, a brush and a bit of wax would do wonders. They don't seem in such bad shape to me.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

The shoes in the OP turned out not to be shell, after all, but still a pair of very nice brown brogues:


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

I win.


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

Too bad they weren't shell, but for a very reasonable price you picked up some great chocolate brown wingtips - nice shine by the way. We're still pulling for shell on the Polos.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

Just won these AE Saratogas over on ebay. The creasing makes me think shell, but then there's that full rubber sole, so I just don't know. Any thoughts?


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Shell. Topy'ed. Nice find.


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

^^ What he said.


----------



## Got Shell? (Jul 30, 2008)

Shell. Very scuffed. Shell. I had a pair of those.


----------



## emptym (Feb 22, 2008)

I lose! Or they sent you a different pair. :devil: JK.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

I'm almost embarassed to say what the winning bid was, it was so low. I know they're a little worse for wear but I've got a great local cobbler who I am confident can recondition them. He's done some amazing work for me in the past.

Thanks for the feedback! I'll confirm when they arrive.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Cardinals5 said:


> Too bad they weren't shell, but for a very reasonable price you picked up some great chocolate brown wingtips - nice shine by the way. We're still pulling for shell on the Polos.


You got it! They're shell. See here for photos: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=1049030&postcount=121


----------



## Got Shell? (Jul 30, 2008)

No freakin way! Good for you, I was sure they weren't when I saw the small pics, but that is nice. They really look like the bastard cousin of the shell gifford chukka and the darlton plaintoe blucher, of which I have a pair. Really nice find!


----------



## cecil47 (Oct 25, 2009)

Shell or not shell?
Older AE Leeds, model 9548. This is not the current edition, and I can't find anything about the old model #s...


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem so. They have some shell characteristics, but the AE catalog from 1980 lists the Leeds (#9548) as burgundy polished cobbler (corrected grain).


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

cecil47 said:


> Shell or not shell?
> Older AE Leeds, model 9548. This is not the current edition, and I can't find anything about the old model #s...


Those look exactly like my older pair of AE Leeds. The top line of #'s in mine are 91/2D 91808, with the next line reading, 9588 COMB., followed by three blank spaces, ant then a 1 and (what appears to be a pretty much rubbed out) 9! What a shame that AE did away with that classic, more rounded and more comfortable toe box. ;(


----------



## Barrister & Solicitor (Jan 10, 2007)

*Hanover Masterflex*

Good afternoon gents.

Would any of you know whether a "Hanover Masterflex Signature" with combination heel could reasonably be shell?


----------



## srivats (Jul 29, 2008)

Barrister & Solicitor said:


> Good afternoon gents.
> 
> Would any of you know whether a "Hanover Masterflex Signature" with combination heel could reasonably be shell?


From what I know, only Hanover's "LB Sheppard signature" line was shell ... I may be wrong though.


----------



## cecil47 (Oct 25, 2009)

Cardinals5 said:


> Unfortunately, it doesn't seem so. They have some shell characteristics, but the AE catalog from 1980 lists the Leeds (#9548) as burgundy polished cobbler (corrected grain).


Thanks, I figured they were too good to be true. Still might go for them at the right price. As Eagle2250 noted, the old shoe is much more comfy for my wide duck feet!


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

srivats said:


> From what I know, only Hanover's "LB Sheppard signature" line was shell ... I may be wrong though.


This is correct, except to say that not all LB Sheppards were shell. The only time Hanover made shells, however, they placed them under the Sheppard label. I have a pair of Sheppard shells myself and, to be quite honest, the construction quality is not as good as Florsheim Royal Imperial shells.


----------



## Barrister & Solicitor (Jan 10, 2007)

Thanks for the info fellows.


----------



## well-kept (May 6, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> Those look exactly like my older pair of AE Leeds. The top line of #'s in mine are 91/2D 91808, with the next line reading, 9588 COMB., followed by three blank spaces, ant then a 1 and (what appears to be a pretty much rubbed out) 9! What a shame that AE did away with that classic, more rounded and more comfortable toe box. ;(


Indeed, that is the old number 8 last. Fit me as if custom.


----------



## Barrister & Solicitor (Jan 10, 2007)

*Hanover, again*

I'm back with the Hanovers I was talking about earlier. I figured I might as well link the Ebay page so you can see the pictures, especially since the size is narrow, it wouldn't be everybody's cup of tea.

Is anybody's opinion changed?


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

Nope, definitely not shell - those are actually rather late Hanovers (mid to late 1980s?) and I'd stay away at that price unless you have a hard time finding 9B shoes in Canada. 

I say stay away at that price because by the 1980s Hanover was using a lot of corrected grain (my first "nice" shoes were made in USA Hanover corrected grain wingtips) and those soles, while leather, were not oak-bark tanned (I forget the exact phrase), which means they'll wear faster.

Please also note that those are on a combination last 9 B/AA - meaning those are very narrow heels


----------



## Barrister & Solicitor (Jan 10, 2007)

Thanks Cardinals, that's pretty much what I thought looking at the pictures: basic calfskin. Thanks also for the balance of the info.


----------



## The Deacon (Nov 25, 2006)

Cardinals5 said:


> This is correct, except to say that not all LB Sheppards were shell. The only time Hanover made shells, however, they placed them under the Sheppard label. I have a pair of Sheppard shells myself and, to be quite honest, the construction quality is not as good as Florsheim Royal Imperial shells.


I owned a pair of Hanover shell cordovan wingtips that were not LB Sheppard Signature, they had a black heel pad with HANOVER in print and they were actually built better than my LB Sheppard signature series wingtips. I'll hunt for a photo. They were incredibly solid and had a cognac brown patina from their original burgundy. Best shells I ever wore!


----------



## mxgreen (Jan 18, 2009)

Shell or not shell -


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

The Deacon said:


> I owned a pair of Hanover shell cordovan wingtips that were not LB Sheppard Signature, they had a black heel pad with HANOVER in print and they were actually built better than my LB Sheppard signature series wingtips. I'll hunt for a photo. They were incredibly solid and had a cognac brown patina from their original burgundy. Best shells I ever wore!


Please do, Deacon - I would love to see a photo!


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

mxgreen said:


> Shell or not shell -


Lots of shell-or-not-shell today - I'd have to vote no on those. The microcreasing on the last pic seems to indicate calf and possibly corrected grain. The pinkish scuffing on the toe in the second pic also concerns me as you wouldn't normally see the color knocked off when shells are scuffed.


----------



## meister (Oct 29, 2005)

srivats said:


> Very good looking pair of shoes. However, I don't think those are shell. The color is off and the _shell look _just isn't there.
> 
> Didn't chruch's make shoes for Alan McAfee? They do work more with shell compared to other english makers.


Yes and that's why they are calf.


----------



## srivats (Jul 29, 2008)

Cardinals5 said:


> Lots of shell-or-not-shell today - I'd have to vote no on those. The microcreasing on the last pic seems to indicate calf and possibly corrected grain. The pinkish scuffing on the toe in the second pic also concerns me as you wouldn't normally see the color knocked off when shells are scuffed.


+1 on all counts


----------



## AdamsSutherland (Jan 22, 2008)

https://img683.imageshack.us/i/notshell.jpg/

Based on the micro-creasing seen at the circled points... definitely not shell.


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

A good friend asked about these. I'm leaning heavily towards shell, but thought I'd check out the forum's opinion.

They seem to have that distinctive glow and the right puffiness around the metal eyelets.

They're Florsheim Imperial saddles - the ones with the green stitching.

Unfortunately, this is the best pic available.


----------



## AdamsSutherland (Jan 22, 2008)

Cardinal5,

I'm leaning towards yes, but it's really hard to tell. Swelling around the eyelets, big rolling creases, and a shine that resembles CG. CG also doesn't crease like that...


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Saddle shoes are notoriously often made of corrected grain leather, which give a shell like appearance. Just on experience I would lean toward corrected grain on these (without better pics). That said, I have a pair of Keith Highlanders in corrected grain that are quite serviceable.


----------



## AdamsSutherland (Jan 22, 2008)

Florsheim did make saddles in shell at one point. If you run an Ebay search for shell cordovan, there should be a pair of size 12 Florsheim burgundy and black saddles for sale in the Ebay Marketplace. They look very much like the aforementioned pair.


----------



## cecil47 (Oct 25, 2009)

*I'm hoping...*

Played the game of shell or not shell on ebay. Not a big gamble ($20 shipped) and I think it was a good one...

What do the experts think? A couple scuffs here and there, but they fit great, so I'm happy either way.


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

^^ 100% shell!!! Great find and even better price.


----------



## Got Shell? (Jul 30, 2008)

No doubt, 100% shell


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Cecil47, $20 genuine shells, you're hoping? I'm hoping you get athlete's foot:icon_smile_big:

What brand? I like that toe perfing much better than traditional fleur-de-lis


----------



## cecil47 (Oct 25, 2009)

Thanks guys!

They're Hanovers, thought I put that in the post, but forgot (in my excitement). I lucked out because the seller had pretty good pics, but didn't know they were shell. 

I'll try to avoid the athlete's foot (in fact, since I quit racing bikes 10 or so years ago, I avoid ALL things athletic, and, unfortunately, it shows.)!


----------



## mcarthur (Jul 18, 2005)

cecil47 said:


> Thanks guys!
> 
> They're Hanovers, thought I put that in the post, but forgot (in my excitement). I lucked out because the seller had pretty good pics, but didn't know they were shell.
> 
> I'll try to avoid the athlete's foot (in fact, since I quit racing bikes 10 or so years ago, I avoid ALL things athletic, and, unfortunately, it shows.)!


shell! enjoy wearing and use the procedure


----------



## cecil47 (Oct 25, 2009)

I will do both, Uncle.


----------



## The Deacon (Nov 25, 2006)

I think these are vintage Crown Windsor Bostonian in what looks to be a Ravello shell cordovan.


----------



## srivats (Jul 29, 2008)

The Deacon said:


> I think these are vintage Crown Windsor Bostonian in what looks to be a Ravello shell cordovan.


Those are goold ol' #8 after wear and tear. That pair seems to never have had been tree'd in its life.


----------



## The Deacon (Nov 25, 2006)

The Deacon said:


> I owned a pair of Hanover shell cordovan wingtips that were not LB Sheppard Signature, they had a black heel pad with HANOVER in print and they were actually built better than my LB Sheppard signature series wingtips. I'll hunt for a photo. They were incredibly solid and had a cognac brown patina from their original burgundy. Best shells I ever wore!


----------



## frosejr (Mar 27, 2010)

The Deacon said:


> View attachment 2859
> View attachment 2860


GORGEOUS! I'm a sucker for Hanover.


----------

