# Church's or Edward Green shoes



## TRUTRO (Jun 8, 2011)

I am a lifelong fan of Church's; finding them extremely comfortable and well made however due to their recent increase in price (they are becoming exceedingly expensive) I would like to try other brands. I have been told .hat Edward Green is the usual alternative but I wanted to know how they compare and whether you have any suggestions as to a possible alternative for everyday use. Thanks.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Sorry, I have little to offer. I have some older Church shoes, and they are certainly fine shoes. And while I've never purchased EG, I did admire them for several years when a favored US retailer carried their line. My superficial impression is that they are substantially better shoes than Church. Even better materials and closer workmanship.

Since you are UK based you will certainly want to source your shoes directly. But if you haven't yet enjoyed it, you may wish to Google Leather Soul as they now carry some EG and have a beautiful website with carefully chosen offerings, including special order models from various makers.


----------



## TRUTRO (Jun 8, 2011)

Thanks; My big problem though, is that in a shop all the shoes look very nice and well made (EGs look like Church's) and the real difference is only noticeable after some time of use. Has anyone owned both brands and did they differ substantially in the way they aged or broke down?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

I think Edward Green is better, try them out. Church's can often be had at a discount from Herring Shoes. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mcobinad (Jun 4, 2011)

I would definitely recommend Edward Green shoes over church's. I have couple of church's, bucket loads of John Lobb & C&J. I have recently ordered 3 MTO Shannon boots from Edward Green's store on Jermyn street london and would get them sometime in August, in black, dark oak brown & burgundy colour. They are killer boots and i had the opportunity to choose the leather and the upper mink suede top. The reason for EG is because i find their leather very refined, much thinner and light weight. The better comparison to EG would be John Lobb not even Church. For me, C&J has a slight edge over Church but debatable. EG made shoes for John Lobb back in the day before it was acquired by Hermes. I have also visited the factory in Northampton and there is regular discounts there. The interior shoe lining, stitching & sole of EG is far superior to that of John Lobb or any shoe brand out there. I love John Lobb(Hermes) so much but because i have loads, i want to alternate my shoe collection hence my reason for EG. The fitting of John lobb is very sleek and well defined while EG is more broader fit but can still propose models that fit like the John lobb's. For instance my Shannon boots will have a sleek fit and perforated toe cap (82 lasts). Church does not come anywhere near these two bigger brands even if it's got history to back it up. Perfect comparison to Church would be Tricker's in my humble opinion.Church's leathers are very hard and they have virtually the same shoe collection all the time. For everyday use, i recommend any brand ranging from EG, John lobb, C&J & Church's but a must win for EG for a more refined leather. For a long day at my place of work, i prefer to wear a shoe that is not heavy to circulate and this is where EG & John lobb are neck to neck. To cut a whole matter short, any gentle man that hasn't got Edward Green's shoe atleast a loafer in his collection isn't a certified shoe amateur.


----------



## Marcellionheart (Mar 10, 2010)

Edward Green shoes are in every way superior to Church's.


----------



## laufer (Feb 20, 2008)

TRUTRO said:


> I am a lifelong fan of Church's; finding them extremely comfortable and well made however due to their recent increase in price (they are becoming exceedingly expensive) I would like to try other brands. I have been told .hat Edward Green is the usual alternative but I wanted to know how they compare and whether you have any suggestions as to a possible alternative for everyday use. Thanks.


You have partially answered your own question. Buy those that provide the best possible fit for your feet.


----------



## Mute (Apr 3, 2005)

Yes, and I feel that the leather quality is better on EG shoes. Also, their antiquing just can't be beat.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Hasn't anybody mentioned yet that Edward Greens are a helluva lot more expensive than Church's? If they weren't somewhat better, something would be horribly wrong!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

JLibourel said:


> Hasn't anybody mentioned yet that Edward Greens are a helluva lot more expensive than Church's? If they weren't somewhat better, something would be horribly wrong!


I assume that's still true in the UK?


----------



## TRUTRO (Jun 8, 2011)

Yes, EGs are more expensive but not by that much and since Church's aren't cheap if I have to buy an expensive pair of shoes a difference of £100 doesn't matter to me as much.


----------



## Finian McLonergan (Sep 23, 2009)

£100 price difference between EG and Church? On which planet?

Take Church's flagship/besteller: the Consul (Oxford Captoe): UK RRP £355
EG equivalent: the Chelsea: UK RRP £615 (currently at Edwards of Manchester)

On a price positioning and quality basis I would compare Church with Crockett & Jones. 

Similarly, EG is comparable to Gaziano & Girling or John Lobb Paris. 

Both sets of brands appeal to different market segments, Church and Crockett & Jones sell in much higher volumes and to a more conservative and price-sensitive group of customers than either EG or G&G.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

All shoe prices have gone up a lot in the last year, not just Church's. I own Church's, Edward Green, C&J and Gaziano and Girling. I like Church's heavier leather - it holds up better than most.

However Edward Green ( at £200 a pair more!) are better of course - sole leather is oak and mimosa bark tanned, stich count on soles is higher, upper leather is better quality and more handfinishing than Church's. Of course, the better sole leather is an irrelevant point if your shoes have Danite soles - Danite, is Danite is Danite.

Many Church's customers find that Edward Green is the natural high end make to transfer to as, like Church's, it is more on the traditional side of things than John Lobb Paris - not that EG aren't making elegant and modern shoes - they are.


----------



## Jose (Oct 19, 2010)

*EG better*

My first experience with Church came once I had to put an end to my bespoke days (marriage and children). The slip on was painful indeed. An old pro explained to me that the model in question had been poorly designed and in order to keep the foot inside the shoe they had narrowed the bridge. Good explanation to a real torment. Second came my suede Church. They stank. I took a shower, unwrapped the socks and yet, one hour later at the doc´s the stink would be unbearable. Again the old pro explained that tannery left much to be desired.
Then a pair of incredibly aged chestnut pair of unknown brand got my attention in a shop window. I bought them compulsively. To make a long story short. They became all weather favorites. They went from the cold of the canadian winter to the hot of July in Madrid. I happened to loose them...on a fishing trip for I used them on all possible occassions. Even as slippers at home. It seems I was following in the steps of the late King George. I swear I did not know it. EG has been ever since my only favorite. I advice everybody the EG experience. Better two EG than five Church. O six. Believe me, I started having shoes fit to measure more than forty years ago. EG is a great alternative. And more affordable. All is relative, anyhow. John Lobb does not qualify either, though I consider them better than Church.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Marcellionheart said:


> Edward Green shoes are in every way superior to Church's.


It's true. Would you rather drive a Ford a Ferrari?


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

EG's are better but not worth the difference, especially when you can get Church's for £200 in the sales; although EG would be my choice. 

EG is the right step up from Church's - I did the same. Church's still have a place in my shoe rotation, especially for work.


----------



## DaveTrader (Jun 11, 2011)

joenobody0 said:


> It's true. Would you rather drive a Ford a Ferrari?


I wouldn't go so far to say that. That's too far of a jump.

Now if you said, Ferrari to Lamborghini...


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

DaveTrader said:


> I wouldn't go so far to say that. That's too far of a jump.
> 
> Now if you said, Ferrari to Lamborghini...


We need a car to shoe comparison. 
AE => Ford
Alden => GM
florsheim duckie brown => Kia


----------



## Mute (Apr 3, 2005)

I own both. The break-in isn't an issue. I do find that the leather on the EG is nicer and looked better over time. However, I don't own enough of both to say that my experience is conclusive.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

I have a 25 year old pair of EG that have been resoled once, but look better than new. I don't remember what they cost, but it hardly seems to matter anymore.


----------



## Geezer (Apr 22, 2010)

I've worn both for 20 years or more. EGs are nicer (lasts, handwork,especially), but traditional Church's (not the odd recently introduced Prada-inspired Italian things) are very good and always have been. I'm fond of them. At the risk of huge controversy, I prefer them to C and J (three pairs, 2 for Fosters RTW). Slightly less stylish than C and J, but a more robust feeling shoe. And Church lasts tend to fit my odd-shaped feet whereas C and J are almost always loose in the heel and long in the toe.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Church's (pre-Prada, anyway): BMW 3-series
EG: BMW 7-series or Mercedes S-class


----------



## ballmouse (Jul 30, 2011)

Starch said:


> Church's (pre-Prada, anyway): BMW 3-series


I was under the impression that Church's is now a pretty mediocre shoe brand because the quality has deteriorated since the acquisition by Prada. Is this true?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

ballmouse said:


> I was under the impression that Church's is now a pretty mediocre shoe brand because the quality has deteriorated since the acquisition by Prada. Is this true?


Many people say that, but I find Church's to have good quality for the price that they are offered at. Other shoes in the same price range aren't better IMO.

They are better than Loake, AE, Barker, Cheaney, about on par with C&J, but not as good as GG or EG or Lobb.


----------



## Pliny (Oct 26, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> Many people say that, but I find Church's to have good quality for the price that they are offered at. Other shoes in the same price range aren't better IMO.
> 
> They are better than Loake, AE, Barker, Cheaney, about on par with C&J, but not as good as GG or EG or Lobb.


agree- It all depends which particular range within each marque you're talking about of course, but Church's are generally in that middle tier of bench-made English shoes, between Cheaney and Grenson at the bottom end and EG, Cleverley, G&G and JL Paris at the top. That's not to say that Cheaney and Grenson aren't good shoes though- they're the bottom of the top end- and of course all these shoes are Goodyear welted and mostly machine lasted too, the major differences being the quality of the leather, the shape of the lasts and the finishes.

For me and (from observation) for many others on the usual forums, EG have the most elegant lasts and styles, unsurpassed leather and very good, if not the best, finishes. Their antiquing is superb. The only thing lacking is the fiddle waist and beveled soles, if they're your thing, but even those can be had if you want to go Top Drawer.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

I think with Church's, being owned by Prada was most of the problem. It did not appeal to the customers.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

ballmouse said:


> I was under the impression that Church's is now a pretty mediocre shoe brand because the quality has deteriorated since the acquisition by Prada. Is this true?


I actually don't know anything personally about the post-Prada Church's, though I must've bought at least a dozen pairs in the pre-Prada days. I just know that, post-Prada, they kicked up their prices and shut down their stores.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Starch said:


> I actually don't know anything personally about the post-Prada Church's, though I must've bought at least a dozen pairs in the pre-Prada days. I just know that, post-Prada, they kicked up their prices and shut down their stores.


Hopefully they develop their core business, making good shoes. Could go either way, but I think they are worth their money right now. Have bought 2 pairs, one of them are in their 8th year now, still going strong. Black consuls, I think.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> Many people say that, but I find Church's to have good quality for the price that they are offered at. Other shoes in the same price range aren't better IMO.
> 
> They are better than Loake, AE, Barker, Cheaney, about on par with C&J, but not as good as GG or EG or Lobb.


I have always worn Alden because they fit me best. My father always said Church's are the shoes to buy. I had full intentions of trying the brand until overnight their stores disappeared. So how does Church compare to Alden? As for EG, I have no desire. Their styles are too sleek, and besides I don't think they would fit my wide feet.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

joenobody0 said:


> We need a car to shoe comparison.
> AE => Ford
> Alden => GM
> florsheim duckie brown => Kia


This is a car to shoe comparison?? Is AE the Ford, the Mercury, or the Lincoln? Is Alden the Chevy, Buick, or Cadillac? So if Florsheim Duckie Brown are the Kia, what are the Florsheim Imperial Kenmoors? Where do the other Florsheims come in?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

blue suede shoes said:


> I have always worn Alden because they fit me best. My father always said Church's are the shoes to buy. I had full intentions of trying the brand until overnight their stores disappeared. So how does Church compare to Alden? As for EG, I have no desire. Their styles are too sleek, and besides I don't think they would fit my wide feet.


Sadly, I have never worn Alden...


----------



## Marcellionheart (Mar 10, 2010)

As a very fortunate Canadian who lives part-time in London, I have to tell you that Church's is not what it used to be. Your father's Church's was a good quality shoemaker that made good quality shoes that were not too expensive. 

That Church's is gone. The family does not run it anymore. The entry cost for Church's these days runs at about 200GBP. That will get you an awful pair of corrected grain leather shoes. For a shoe with proper construction with proper materials, in the London Regent St. store, you're looking at at least 500GBP. These shoes would be about on par with Aldens but at almost twice the price. 

At that price point, you would be far far better off with Edward Greens or Crockett and Jones. There is no question.

If you're looking for a shoe that costs around 200-300 GBP, then you should be looking at Cheaney's or Trickers. Trickers makes excellent country shoes and some city styles. Cheaney's is owned by the Church family who used to own Church's. Their quality has not declined, though some of their lasts aren't the sleekest.

In short, avoid Church's these days. Their great legacy is gone.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Marcellionheart said:


> As a very fortunate Canadian who lives part-time in London, I have to tell you that Church's is not what it used to be. Your father's Church's was a good quality shoemaker that made good quality shoes that were not too expensive.
> 
> That Church's is gone. The family does not run it anymore. The entry cost for Church's these days runs at about 200GBP. That will get you an awful pair of corrected grain leather shoes. For a shoe with proper construction with proper materials, in the London Regent St. store, you're looking at at least 500GBP. These shoes would be about on par with Aldens but at almost twice the price.
> 
> ...


I can't really speak to what church's used to be, but you can get the custom grade church's at much less than £500. In fact, at herring shoes the Consul is sold for £355 (incl VAT). That is an excellent shoe at an excellent value. And that's not twice the price of Aldens, especially not considering the VAT.

https://www.herringshoes.co.uk/prod...d=6&shoeid=2&selectedSizeid=0&selectedFitid=0

Neither cheaney nor trickers make shoes as good as church's custom grade. Cheaney is £100 less and there are real differences in leather and construction. The look and feel of churches vs cheaney is completely different.

Cheaney has to my knowledge never been the equivalent of church's, EG or C&J.

Trickers are only around £30 less, and unless I'm buying country shoes, I'd definitely stay with church's.

Also, the entry level church's aren't that bad at all. They have good construction and leather that compares (IMO) with other manufacturers at that price point. There are Barker and Loake and Cheaney to compete with at that price point. None of those brands have excellent leather.

Prices for church's have gone up, but they are on par with similarly priced competition. I don't really care that the family does not own them anymore...


----------



## Marcellionheart (Mar 10, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> I can't really speak to what church's used to be, but you can get the custom grade church's at much less than £500. In fact, at herring shoes the Consul is sold for £355 (incl VAT). That is an excellent shoe at an excellent value. And that's not twice the price of Aldens, especially not considering the VAT.
> 
> https://www.herringshoes.co.uk/prod...d=6&shoeid=2&selectedSizeid=0&selectedFitid=0
> 
> ...


At 355 you're really better off with C&J anyway, tbh.


----------



## Geezer (Apr 22, 2010)

Marcellionheart said:


> As a very fortunate Canadian who lives part-time in London, I have to tell you that Church's is not what it used to be. Your father's Church's was a good quality shoemaker that made good quality shoes that were not too expensive.
> 
> That Church's is gone. The family does not run it anymore. The entry cost for Church's these days runs at about 200GBP. That will get you an awful pair of corrected grain leather shoes. For a shoe with proper construction with proper materials, in the London Regent St. store, you're looking at at least 500GBP. These shoes would be about on par with Aldens but at almost twice the price.
> 
> ...


This is fast becoming clothing forum orthodoxy.

I can only offer my own experience.

I own 4 pairs of Church's shoes. Two are more than 25 years old. The other two are two-three, definitely post-Prada. I can not see a significant difference in quality of construction or materials. Indeed, my 25-year old "diplomat" half brogues are half-linen lined, and my newer ones of the same model are full leather.

I do not dispute that many of Church's post-prada fashion offerings are a disgrace. But I have seen nothing to suggest that the traditional "custom grade" core of the range have stopped being a solid and decent shoe and comparable to the competition in the same price range.


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

Geezer said:


> This is fast becoming clothing forum orthodoxy.
> 
> I do not dispute that many of Church's post-prada fashion offerings are a disgrace. But* I have seen nothing to suggest that the traditional "custom grade" core of the range have stopped being a solid and decent shoe and comparable to the competition in the same price range*.


Although I only one pair of pre-Prada Church's, I agree and do not understand the obsession with C&J about being a better (owning both C&J and Church's, would put them on par; different styles, with one not better then the other).

I suppose it is a good thing, more likely to grab bargain :biggrin2:


----------



## Alan004 (Nov 1, 2014)

Hey guys. It's been years since this post, but I feel the need to intercede. Two years ago I took advantage of the Brexit Pound to Dollar situation. I live in Seattle and have been pining for a pair of Chruch's (Royal Collection- discontinued in 2009) Phillip's that were used in Quantum of Solace. I had to order them bespoke and all in with shipping and no VAT, I got them for $675 US dollars or close to it. Pre Brexit they would have cost $900. The dollar/pound was at $1.19 and with the VAT off it was real coupe. I digress. 
My point being is that the core Church's shoes are still an excellently made shoe. I went to the factory 3 years ago and looked inside.. talked to some of the workers when I was at the factory store. They really are great shoes. Now I do own 3 pairs of EG and yes, they are in a different league, but then so is the price. In US dollars your effectively paying double. The majority of my shoe collection (all 18 pairs) is Church's. I have 4 pairs of C&J (two boots for winter) and they too are great shoes. Very different from Church's, but none the less on a pare. 
As far as Church's go, if you can steer clear of the crap made in Italy and focus on the triple sole and other shoes like the Consul, Chetwynd, Grafton etc the you will be in good shape. And... and if you know your sizes in the current lasts, order them bespoke with the old last styles.. the 73 (chetwynd, Grafton, Consul etc) and the 224 last for the Shannon. They are SO much nicer.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

It’s good to know your experience thus far has been positive. 

I don’t own any Church’s so I cannot comment on the overall quality and aesthetic vis a vie the Prada takeover. 

I know that at the current price point (In USD) I’m fine sticking with C&J.


----------



## ItalianStyle (Mar 13, 2017)

I'm also quite satisfied with most of my Church's shoes too. Only exception is the pair I don't like (too wide) but simply can't wear out...

One thing to remember when looking for deals, is that the City line ('Amsterdam', 'Berlin', 'Hong Kong', etc.) is a cheaper (and lower quality) line that shouldn't be compared to their normal price level.


----------



## Hebrew Barrister (Oct 1, 2017)

joenobody0 said:


> It's true. Would you rather drive a Ford a Ferrari?


What's the trip? 1000mi cross country drive? I might pick the Ford - more likely to not break down.


----------

