# Are Brooks and AE kidding!?!?



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

If a pair of my shoes gets to look this bad, I toss 'em!

Brooks proudly introduces - Pre beat-to-cr*p shoes!








https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...ROWN&sort_by=&sectioncolor=&sectionsize=#null

I swear they've got the inmates running the asylum over there.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

Hipsters.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Flanderian said:


> If a pair of my shoes gets to look this bad, I toss 'em!
> 
> Brooks proudly introduces - Pre beat-to-cr*p shoes!
> 
> ...


Well, no, see, that's pre-stressed demi-grain town/country retro curated....ahh, Hell, those are regrettable shoes. "Imitation grown up", to go with the too-small suits


----------



## maximar (Jan 11, 2010)

Notice that out of all the shoes made by AE for BB, these are the only one's identified as made for them. What is goin on here? It is said that "there will be a time where people will be proud of things they ought to be ashamed". Exhibit A.


----------



## Mox (May 30, 2012)

"Sorry -- This product is no longer available."

Maybe someone is paying attention?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mox said:


> "Sorry -- This product is no longer available."
> 
> Maybe someone is paying attention?


(sarcasm mode engaged) or maybe they have sold out, desirable items as they are.


----------



## Hobson (Mar 13, 2007)

You will be pleased to learn that they are once again available on the BB site. Sadly, there is no emoticon for sarcasm.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Does AE not still offer their "Rough and Ready"(?) collection? Surprising as it might be to some of us, there does seem to be a market for such shoe finishes! :icon_scratch:


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

I have contacted Brooks Brothers to suggest a line of "pre-moth-eaten cashmere sweaters" to grace their Fall/Winter collection


----------



## Pink and Green (Jul 22, 2009)

A pity I got rid of my camel hair "pre-moth eaten" polo coat a couple years back. I'd be in fashion now.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

I'm not seeing any "pre-stressing" on the shoes in the link. They're just made from pebble grain pull-up leather instead of calf and have a natural-edged reverse welt made of the same material. Pull-up leather is hot-stuffed with oils and waxes and, as it flexes, the waxes are brought to the surface which creates the variations in color that might be confused for patina. I don't have a need for them, but I think they're pretty decent-looking casual longwings for wet/winter weather.


----------



## David J. Cooper (Apr 26, 2010)

What about this?

https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...=DARK-GREY&sort_by=&sectioncolor=&sectionsize=


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

David J. Cooper said:


> What about this?
> 
> https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...=DARK-GREY&sort_by=&sectioncolor=&sectionsize=


Yuck!! That's fugly.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Has it ever occurred to y'all that BB selling popular stuff you don't like might actually help to subsidize their ability to keep selling the sacks, shells, and OCBDs you DO like?


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

hardline_42 said:


> I'm not seeing any "pre-stressing" on the shoes in the link. They're just made from pebble grain pull-up leather instead of calf and have a natural-edged reverse welt made of the same material. Pull-up leather is hot-stuffed with oils and waxes and, as it flexes, the waxes are brought to the surface which creates the variations in color that might be confused for patina. I don't have a need for them, but I think they're pretty decent-looking casual longwings for wet/winter weather.


I have to agree that they are pretty decent looking casual longwings. But $300 for a shoe that comes in only one width? They must be kidding. As for the many who think that the item is not fashionable, at least they are a lot more fashionable than those paint splattered jeans which are becoming more common.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Orgetorix said:


> Has it ever occurred to y'all that BB selling popular stuff you don't like might actually help to subsidize their ability to keep selling the sacks, shells, and OCBDs you DO like?


If that cardigan is an example of their popular stuff, I think BB may have to buck up their ideas a bit. Brooks seem to be trying to do young and trendy and be more like Gap or Zara, but some of their recent efforts are just horrible.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, that they like what they like, and I feel that's the way it should be. And I would not wish to dissuade anyone that just because a pair of new shoes looks as if a wearer might have stepped in a pile of elephant dung, many times over a period of years; that they shouldn't lust after said pair of shoes.

But it is the ultimate triumph of American marketing that a portion of the public has been convinced that an article of clothing that looks as if it should be thrown away is somehow more desirable for it. And that the second rate materials and sloppy construction that abets the creation of such are somehow necessary for some functional advantage in these shoes.

Here are two pair of shoes of similar design and both feature the described "pull up" leather.

First, the original -









Next, the comparison -









Both shoes have pull up leather that is "hot-stuffed with oils and waxes." Do the leathers look the same? Sure as heck, not to me! Both shoes are long wings. To my eye the first looks sloppily made, ungainly and bumptious, the second quite handsome.

I am also entertained by the argument that demographic whoring and the squandering of brand equity for a quick buck by a retailer once known for its standards somehow promotes my interests and aids the long term viability of the enterprise.


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

I'm with Flanderian. The logo'd hoodie reminds me of the hood decal on the late '70s Ponitac Firebird TransAm. A recent trip to a local mall that has Nordstrom, Macy and a few other department stores as well as several specialty stores confirms the prevailing look for menswear is jackets 2" too short, pants too short in rise and length, and miniature shirt collars and ties. I've begun calling it the Disney approach to style: It's a small world after all. If only the logos would get smaller too...


----------



## Hardiw1 (May 17, 2011)

No need for those pesky shoe trees! :crazy:


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

They also have another AE black grained longwing on the site that looks pretty good. Haven't seen a pebble grain wingtip or plain toe worth buying for 20 years so I might check this one out. Won't get the hoodie though.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Flanderian said:


> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, that they like what they like, and I feel that's the way it should be. And I would not wish to dissuade anyone that just because a pair of new shoes looks as if a wearer might have stepped in a pile of elephant dung, many times over a period of years; that they shouldn't lust after said pair of shoes.
> 
> But it is the ultimate triumph of American marketing that a portion of the public has been convinced that an article of clothing that looks as if it should be thrown away is somehow more desirable for it. And that the second rate materials and sloppy construction that abets the creation of such are somehow necessary for some functional advantage in these shoes.
> 
> ...


The second pair are not pebble grain. While it's clear that you've made up your mind about the shoes, the purpose of my comment was to clarify that the look you so despise might be a characteristic of the leather that was used, not any artificial distressing on the manufacturer's part. I own several pairs of workboots and casual mocs made of Horween pull-up leather that, when new, looked exactly like the first pair. To my knowledge, they were never "stepped in a pile of elephant dung, many times over a period of years" but you never know.

Whether or not a longwing SHOULD be made of a more casual leather is up for debate. I prefer scotch grain calf, myself. The raw edge of the reverse welt is also a detail that is not common (and sloppily done on that particular pair). As I said in my previous post, those shoes are not for me, but I don't think they're the "pre beat-to-cr*p" shoes described in the OP.


----------



## Himself (Mar 2, 2011)

phyrpowr said:


> "Imitation grown up", to go with the too-small suits


Or "ironic grown-up," as juvenile as it gets.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Let me add I have no beef with the leather, just not made up into this type shoe in this manner.


----------



## geologic (Oct 6, 2010)

I don't like this product, and I generally don't like pre-distressed clothing, but...

As those who participated when Trad was called Ivy League could remind us: intentional distressing is nothing new and is not foreign to Trad and its roots. As I recall, I've read people on this forum and elsewhere writing about:

Intentionally laundering white wool socks in such a way that they yellow.
Intentionally beating up Bass Weejuns so that they don't look new and have to be held together with duct tape.
Bleeding madras.
It's a tiny bit different when you have Brooks or Allen Edmonds do it for you, instead of doing it yourself. But only a tiny bit.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

geologic said:


> Intentionally laundering white wool socks in such a way that they yellow.
> Intentionally beating up Bass Weejuns so that they don't look new and have to be held together with duct tape.
> Bleeding madras.


One and two are silly and not cool, but even less so if you pay someone to do it for you. Number three is simply a product of normal care, but if you buy it that way, you lose all your points and have to go back to start.
Phony is* not *traditional!* :icon_headagainstwal

*It is the *antithesis* of traditional!


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

Flanderian said:


> One and two are silly and not cool, but even less so if you pay someone to do it for you. Number three is simply a product of normal care, but if you buy it that way, you lose all your points and have to go back to start.
> Phony is* not *traditional!* :icon_headagainstwal
> 
> *It is the *antithesis* of traditional!


Isn't it just a matter of aspiring to different things? I mean, in the 1960s, plenty of people wore "Ivy League" clothes because they aspired to belong to some semi-mythical WASP aristocracy. Now, people want to look like they're so on point that they bought currently-fashionable shoes seven years ago, and went on tons of "adventures" in them, and were in general, so much cooler than anybody else. Neither is really worse than the other, though I prefer one stylistically.

Phoniness, if you ask me, is very traditional in this country. I mean, there's a reason the Gilded Age wasn't called the Solid Gold age.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> Phoniness, if you ask me, is very traditional in this country.


To each, their own. Life is as you live it.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

Flanderian said:


> To each, their own. Life is as you live it.


Certainly. I do want to clarify that I don't think that's a good thing.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, that they like what they like, and I feel that's the way it should be. And I would not wish to dissuade anyone that just because a pair of new shoes looks as if a wearer might have stepped in a pile of elephant dung, many times over a period of years; that they shouldn't lust after said pair of shoes.
> 
> But it is the ultimate triumph of American marketing that a portion of the public has been convinced that an article of clothing that looks as if it should be thrown away is somehow more desirable for it. And that the second rate materials and sloppy construction that abets the creation of such are somehow necessary for some functional advantage in these shoes.
> 
> ...


Well this present comparison is certainly apt to add another chapter to the Alden vs AE debate! LOL. If they are going to keep up with increased demand for the vintage look designs, Alden had better start giving that aging workforce an extra shot or two of Geritol in the morning and during afternoon work breaks!


----------



## redmanca (May 29, 2008)

Flanderian said:


> Phony is* not *traditional!* :icon_headagainstwal
> 
> *It is the *antithesis* of traditional!


Who was the guy who would wash his madras jackets in the pool, and then let them sit in the sun on the deck for a week or two before wearing them? Some older celebrity, I think. Can't remember his name though.

In any case, calling it phony is a little strong.

Conor


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

This is not the first AE pull up leather or chromexcel walking oxford I've seen with some imperfections in the leather. Despite the example from Alden posted above, wrinkling and color variation seems to be endemic. Doubt all the Alden shoes in this line are as perfect as the ones in the picture. Doesn't seem to be a big deal to me. These sorts of imperfections don't affect the wear of the shoe. This leather seems to crease a lot anyway when used in welted shoes, so if a little wrinkling bothers you, then you shouldn't be wearing this style in the first place. 

This seems a bit like AE making a silk purse. There seems to be so much wrinkling of the leather that it is almost like they just used all the parts of all the hides that have impefections. I guess you could call this an aesthetic that embraces the organic nature of the materials if you wanted to. A little over the top, but I guess I appreciate that more than one that says everything needs to be all slick and shiny.


----------



## rwaldron (Jun 22, 2012)

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=folkster


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

maximar said:


> It is said that "there will be a time where people will be proud of things they ought to be ashamed". Exhibit A.


That ship set sail years ago!!


----------



## LeeReynolds (Jan 23, 2012)

Taken Aback said:


> Hipsters.


You took the words right out of my mouth.

Distressed leather has a place, but on nice dress shoes is not it.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Flanderian said:


> If a pair of my shoes gets to look this bad, I toss 'em!
> 
> Brooks proudly introduces - Pre beat-to-cr*p shoes!
> 
> ...


After having read the thread, I think there are a couple of red herrings here that need to be addressed:

1. *These are not dress shoes.* These shoes have a rubber lug sole and are unmistakably designed to be casual footwear. If the objection is that the finish of the shoe is "ugly" and would never be acceptable as businesswear, I agree. However, it must be stated that obviously, it was not the intent of the manufacturer to present these as businesswear.

2. *These shoes are well-built. *I cannot see anything about the shoe that would lead me to think that it is a defective product. The stitiching is tight, the leather is uncompromised, and the sole construction looks to be superb. For its intended use, casual footwear, this shoe appears to be better constructed than it needs to be.

If we can agree that this is a well-constructed casual shoe, then the main objection that I'm seeing is that the finish is "unacceptably" faux-distressed in appearance. Or that the finish is so distressed that the shoe does not meet the standard of presentable footwear.

Whether the shoe is presentable or not is a matter of opinion, but in the casual setting, I can see wearing these shoes, but again that is a matter of opinion.

The more tricky question is whether or not a faux-distressing of the shoe is an unacceptable short-cut to get to that mythical place in Trad Clothing lore where the item is usually very old, comfortable, broken-in, faded in color, and on that razor's edge of being acceptable for public display and being something seen on a hobo riding the rails to Florida to pick oranges in the winter. Usually this state of clothing nirvana lasts for a very short period of time for a particular item, and so I can see the temptation of wanting to extend that period of time for something longer than, say, 3 additional wearings.

When I was in college in the 80s, my friends would throw their newly purchased LL Bean Bluchers against trees or brick walls to get the "right look" before they wore the shoes. I never saw the point in doing something like that, but to each his own. I think the shoes in question are along that line of thinking...that is, let's get to that nirvana state as soon as possible.

Would I buy these shoes? Probably not, but it's not hurting anyone, so why not let this pass?


----------



## rwaldron (Jun 22, 2012)

If you wear a shoe that looks distressed like that, then you need to earn it (or inherit a pair that your father earned)!


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> 1. *These are not dress shoes.* These shoes have a rubber lug sole and are unmistakably designed to be casual footwear. If the objection is that the finish of the shoe is "ugly" and would never be acceptable as businesswear, I agree. However, it must be stated that obviously, it was not the intent of the manufacturer to present these as businesswear.


Well said. It's also worth pointing out that until 1950s America, wingtip bluchers were NEVER considered proper dress shoes, no matter what kind of upper or sole they had. It's fine to wear them with suits as a uniquely American affectation, but keep in mind they have a far longer pedigree as a casual/country shoe. So maybe these BB shoes are _more_ authentic than polished black longwings. :devil:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> After having read the thread, I think there are a couple of red herrings here that need to be addressed:
> 
> 1. *These are not dress shoes.* These shoes have a rubber lug sole and are unmistakably designed to be casual footwear. If the objection is that the finish of the shoe is "ugly" and would never be acceptable as businesswear, I agree. However, it must be stated that obviously, it was not the intent of the manufacturer to present these as businesswear.
> 
> ...


Why let it pass?

Discussion of what is or is not appealing is a constant and proper topic of this forum. And if there are red herrings in this thread, it is not in my OP. A *red herring*, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is a clue which is intentionally or unintentionally misleading or distracting from the actual issue. In my OP I wrote, "Brooks proudly introduces - Pre beat-to-cr*p shoes!" That *is* the issue. They are ugly and look sloppy. Subjective perhaps, but it seems many agree, and certainly not a red herring by any stretch of imagination.

Now on the other hand, when other members seem to feel compelled to function *consistently *as apologists for Brooks and/or AE irrespective of how poor the item discussed appears, and to accomplish this introduces bogus arguments about function, and whether it is legitimate for children to enjoy abusing their clothing,* that* constitutes the *veritable definition* of a red herring!

I reject your arguments.

A. Casual shoes don't have to be ugly and look sloppy.
B. It is not a virtue for them to look that way.
C. I can't tell by looking at these shoes if they are "well built." I *can* tell by a host of details that they *do* look sloppily made.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Flanderian said:


> Why let it pass?
> 
> Discussion of what is or is not appealing is a constant and proper topic of this forum. And if there are red herrings in this thread, it is not in my OP. A *red herring*, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is a clue which is intentionally or unintentionally misleading or distracting from the actual issue. In my OP I wrote, "Brooks proudly introduces - Pre beat-to-cr*p shoes!" That *is* the issue. They are ugly and look sloppy. Subjective perhaps, but it seems many agree, and certainly not a red herring by any stretch of imagination.
> 
> ...


Take a deep breath. Obviously, you're distraught.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Orgetorix said:


> Well said. It's also worth pointing out that until 1950s America, wingtip bluchers were NEVER considered proper dress shoes, no matter what kind of upper or sole they had. It's fine to wear them with suits as a uniquely American affectation, but keep in mind they have a far longer pedigree as a casual/country shoe. So maybe these BB shoes are _more_ authentic than polished black longwings. :devil:


Good point.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Take a deep breath. Obviously, you're distraught.


No, not at all. I just think that if you use a term you should know what it means.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> That ship set sail years ago!!


Aren't you the captain?


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 9, 2012)

Nothing new here. This oxford is way distressed (too much):

https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...BLUE&sort_by=&sectioncolor=&sectionsize=Large


----------



## Uncle Bill (May 4, 2010)

Ok having seen the shoes, I'm starting to wonder if the studio audience here on the Trad Forum are over thinking this a little bit. They are casual shoes with a lug sole, something to be worn with khakis or jeans on the weekends while heading out to brunch or the local coffee shop. I would not wear them with a suit, elsewhere on the BB there a nice pair of AE Longwings in a pebble grain that are more formal.


----------



## rwaldron (Jun 22, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> Nothing new here. This oxford is way distressed (too much):
> 
> https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...BLUE&sort_by=&sectioncolor=&sectionsize=Large


The worst part about that one is how disproportionally the distressing is weighted toward the edges. There's none on the puckering or inside collar seems.


----------

