Allen Edmonds rant ;)

[Monsieur de Givenchy]

Gentlemen connoisseurs – am I all alone in feeling that Allen Edmonds just gets all design things wrong, always?! I've bought their shoes, again and again, as if under some kind of American group hypnosis. Because of course you can't buy plastic like Cole Haan or Johnston & Murphy. And you try to be good and buy American. But anybody who wears an Allen Edmonds shoe (including me) automatically looks like an oaf and a bully. Or at best like an agricultural insurance salesman who is going to the big city and wants to look nice.

I have never seen an elegant shoe from them: boxy, stitch-y, clunky, clumsy – total lack of refinement.

OK, they use decent materials. But it's almost like they wreck that beautiful wholegrain Box calf leather and that delicious Horween Cordovan by turning it into AE designs.

Their store on Madison is an embarrassment (currently: big white plastic letters pasted onto the store window, lecturing us on style) – when compared with those temples of elegance that are the Carmina or Crockett & Jones stores close by.

I think I'll just give up on buying American and go with the effortless elegance of Carmina (Spain), Carlos Santos (Portugal), Santoni (Italy). They're not much more expensive, and at least I'll look like a gentleman. Haven't tried out E. Vogel yet. Also haven't tried out Cobbler Union (Atlanta) or J. Fitzpatrick (New York) who have both emerged in recent years and seem to be getting good reactions. So perhaps I'll order those first before leaving taking my money abroad?

Would appreciate your expert thoughts. And please don't give me the old well-it-may-just-not-be-for-you. If aesthetics, like morality, are merely subjective, then we're all lost anyway!

God bless!

 

[Phileas Fogg]

AE has at times produced an interesting show, but in general they’re pretty basic and pretty boring. Not to mention that whatever attention to detail they once employed in their manufacturing process has been flushed away.

The only advantage(s) or strengths I see are:
A) they are widely available, so yes, your “ag sales guy” can find them in Wichita.

B) they are often found on sale and therefore a suitable entry level shoe

 

[ld111134]

AE has at times produced an interesting show, but in general they’re pretty basic and pretty boring. Not to mention that whatever attention to detail they once employed in their manufacturing process has been flushed away.

The only advantage(s) or strengths I see are:
A) they are widely available, so yes, your “ag sales guy” can find them in Wichita.

B) they are often found on sale and therefore a suitable entry level shoe

I toured the AE factory in 2009 with two friends at the invitation of Paul Grangaard, who was then AE’s CEO (he left after the company was sold to Caleres, a publicly-traded company that also owns Famous Footwear and other inexpensive shoe brands). The quality seemed to be much better back then.

 

[Monsieur de Givenchy]

AE has at times produced an interesting show, but in general they’re pretty basic and pretty boring. Not to mention that whatever attention to detail they once employed in their manufacturing process has been flushed away.

The only advantage(s) or strengths I see are:
A) they are widely available, so yes, your “ag sales guy” can find them in Wichita.

B) they are often found on sale and therefore a suitable entry level shoe

So, distribution and price point rule! Makes sense... Thanks.

 

[Monsieur de Givenchy]

I toured the AE factory in 2009 with two friends at the invitation of Paul Grangaard, who was then AE’s CEO (he left after the company was sold to Caleres, a publicly-traded company that also owns Famous Footwear and other inexpensive shoe brands). The quality seemed to be much better back then.

Wow, that must have been interesting! A lot can change in 13 years. Thanks for that perspective.

 

[Garrister]

Gentlemen connoisseurs – am I all alone in feeling that Allen Edmonds just gets all design things wrong, always?! I've bought their shoes, again and again, as if under some kind of American group hypnosis. Because of course you can't buy plastic like Cole Haan or Johnston & Murphy. And you try to be good and buy American. But anybody who wears an Allen Edmonds shoe (including me) automatically looks like an oaf and a bully. Or at best like an agricultural insurance salesman who is going to the big city and wants to look nice.

I have never seen an elegant shoe from them: boxy, stitch-y, clunky, clumsy – total lack of refinement.

OK, they use decent materials. But it's almost like they wreck that beautiful wholegrain Box calf leather and that delicious Horween Cordovan by turning it into AE designs.

Their store on Madison is an embarrassment (currently: big white plastic letters pasted onto the store window, lecturing us on style) – when compared with those temples of elegance that are the Carmina or Crockett & Jones stores close by.

I think I'll just give up on buying American and go with the effortless elegance of Carmina (Spain), Carlos Santos (Portugal), Santoni (Italy). They're not much more expensive, and at least I'll look like a gentleman. Haven't tried out E. Vogel yet. Also haven't tried out Cobbler Union (Atlanta) or J. Fitzpatrick (New York) who have both emerged in recent years and seem to be getting good reactions. So perhaps I'll order those first before leaving taking my money abroad?

Would appreciate your expert thoughts. And please don't give me the old well-it-may-just-not-be-for-you. If aesthetics, like morality, are merely subjective, then we're all lost anyway!

God bless!

Why not compare Allen Edmonds designs to a traditional American GYW manufacturer like Alden? Aldens are also "clunky" so to speak. If you like the European aesthetic you should buy it. I agree with you on many of AE's traditional lasts -- very American. However, Allen Edmonds used to make an Italian designed line. I have one such shoe and it is not clunky in the least. I also own a GYW loafer called the Ascher, which is not clunky in my opinion. The fact is that AE comes out with new lasts and designs all the time -- way more than a maunfucturer like Alden. All sorts of experimentations and permutations. You just need to keep your eye out but, to me, it sounds like you would be happier with Blake stitch shoes generally.

 

[Monsieur de Givenchy]

Why not compare Allen Edmonds designs to a traditional American GYW manufacturer like Alden? Aldens are also "clunky" so to speak. If you like the European aesthetic you should buy it. I agree with you on many of AE's traditional lasts -- very American. However, Allen Edmonds used to make an Italian designed line. I have one such shoe and it is not clunky in the least. I also own a GYW loafer called the Ascher, which is not clunky in my opinion. The fact is that AE comes out with new lasts and designs all the time -- way more than a maunfucturer like Alden. All sorts of experimentations and permutations. You just need to keep your eye out but, to me, it sounds like you would be happier with Blake stitch shoes generally.

Thanks, interesting perspective. Yes, I do have a problem with Alden, too, a little bit. Are most styles from the good shoemakers available in both Blake stich and Goodyear welt? It seems to me that Goodyear welt is so much considered de rigueur the really good companies like Carmina do almost only that?

The only Blake stich shoe I own is a Bruno Magli Maioco. I like it, but it does seem very flimsy. It is also made out of kidskin, I think. Which makes it feel even lighter. Just to give you an idea of how flimsy it is: I have a very high instep, so on Oxford shoes I always have that ugly V, with a lot of distance between the ends at the top. I had this, too, when the Maiocos arrived. But within a few days, the shoe had stretched so much that it was completely closed.

So, if there were a shoemaker that made an Oxford, ideally not a cap toe, but a plain toe, and ideally not a whole cut, but a Balmoral style Oxford, that is Blake stitched, I would very much like to get that. Do you have any ideas if that exists?

The Asher loafer does look nice. The problem is, because of my high arch, I can't do loafers.

Thanks for your feedback.

 

[Genericuser1]

AE does traditional American shoe styles as well as the more current trend toward business casual and sneakers. They have had Italian styled shoes in the past but I don't think they sell well in the American market. Apparently something call "chonk" is in.

For sleek and elegant lasts (typically average width) it is true you need to look at European brands. For most of those brands while I love the designs they won't fit my EEE (H-width) feet so I buy what fits. Occasionally dealing with some tighter shoes and sizing up because at least a few in my collection I've gone for style over proper fit.

 

[TimothyF]

Go too far in the sleek and "elegant" direction (as many brands have done), you end up with feminized pair of shoes. Think stiletto shoes. Also sleekness can only be achieved by making the shoe longer than it needs to be, which makes for sub-ideal walking.

American shoes are closer to traditional British, before the Italian continental feminized look took over. Words like "clunky" and "blobby" are misapplied here. These dress shoes are in between workwear like Red Wing and exaggerated continental pointy. A happy medium IMO. Call them "boring" all you want, but why would you want to draw so much attention to the ground? I consider these styles to be appropriate for the circumstances, and dressy enough.

 

[Jax]

By 2025 Allen Edmond's will have perfected the 1 stitch per inch they are shooting for.

 

[Monsieur de Givenchy]

By 2025 Allen Edmond's will have perfected the 1 stitch per inch they are shooting for.

????

 

[Monsieur de Givenchy]

Go too far in the sleek and "elegant" direction (as many brands have done), you end up with feminized pair of shoes. Think stiletto shoes. Also sleekness can only be achieved by making the shoe longer than it needs to be, which makes for sub-ideal walking.

American shoes are closer to traditional British, before the Italian continental feminized look took over. Words like "clunky" and "blobby" are misapplied here. These dress shoes are in between workwear like Red Wing and exaggerated continental pointy. A happy medium IMO. Call them "boring" all you want, but why would you want to draw so much attention to the ground? I consider these styles to be appropriate for the circumstances, and dressy enough.

That’s a very interesting perspective. You’re saying it’s anti-work, anti-walking, anti-functionality, pretty much anti-American to want more refinement, and that AE ARE making concessions to society and tradition, just not enough to turn us into fops and dandies. Kind of the Trickers boots philosophy.But why do they have to have the “one stitch per inch” philosophy - and why can’t they hide their stitching a little more, and make their soles a little narrower so it doesn’t seem like we’re walking on some kind of agricultural platform?

 

[Son Of Saphir]

Or at best like an agricultural insurance salesman who is going to the big city and wants to look nice.

some look decent,
some look like loaf of bread
some look like what you say above (see below),

Look how crooked closing and broguing is.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

make their soles a little narrower so it doesn’t seem like we’re walking on some kind of agricultural platform?

what is your issue with farmers or ag in general? This is your second mention.

 

[Monsieur de Givenchy]

what is your issue with farmers or ag in general? This is your second mention.

Didn't know I was only allowed one mention? It's just absolutely the vibe I get from these shoes – a kind of inescapable commercial and inescapably rural thing.