Cleverley or G&G Bespoke

[Renfield]

Originally Posted by Panzeraxe II

Yes - completely meaningless. One should be willing to plonk down 2,000+ pounds on the basis of 'what moves them'. Prior research is for peasants and lonely orphans.

Firstly, no one said the gentleman was a peasant or orphan. It wouldn't matter to me if he was. Things like fit are subjective, witness the the perpetual discussion regarding suits. I find discussions like this of limited use as there's no substitute for personal experience. For example, some have a pleasing, successful and rewarding experience with A&S others not. The general welter of different opinions and experiences about a maker render them for all intents and purposes useless IMO. If, however you like to compile a check-list before you take the plunge and it works for you, that's fine.

 

[Wes Bourne]

Originally Posted by medwards

I have been a customer of both. I first met Tony when he was with Cleverley and got to know him when he was with Edward Green. I believe you can find images of the shoes he has made for me elsewhere on this forum. There is no question that he is commited to making a fine product, that he crafts a somewhat different shoe than Cleverley, and that for those looking for design innovations, he has some very intriguing ideas. He believes in an elongated look, slim, but not as closefitting as Cleverley. The shoes he has made for me look to be at least a half size larger than my Cleverley-made footwear and are heavier in weight. It would be a mistake to say Tony puts style over fit, but I think (as manton suggests) his approach to fit is a bit different and more likely to miss the mark initially. He also has more interest in the finishes of his shoes and some indeed find that preferable. That said, I have also been a customer of the folks at Cleverley from the time they were with New & Lingwood/Poulsen Skone. Again, you should be able to find images of some of my Cleverley-made footwear elsewhere on this Forum as well. Cleverley makes a wonderfully light and beautifully fitting shoe, classsic in every respect, and are certainly capable of stretching the design envelope though probably would refrain from trying anything they really did not think would work. Where John Carnera and George Glasgow were really traditionalists at heart, I believe Dominic Casey has brought a new sense of flair to the firm. Their primacy on fit means that their shoes do tend to reflect the shape of one's foot more than G&G's. They certainly have access to all of the hides Tony has and first choice of some additional leathers. I have seen no real evidence of "better construction" by either maker...both can make a superlative product. In the end, it is a question of personal approach and preference.

Originally Posted by medwards

It is not uncommon on this Forum and elsewhere to find individuals who are intrigued by the images of certain bespoke shoes...shoes of distinct craftsmanship and great beauty. Tony Gaziano's best work falls into this category -- handsome, sleek, even somewhat sensuous in line and feel. Not a few Forum participants have shared the hope that someday they might be able to acquire shoes just like these. There is a problem, however. For many of us, no matter our resources or the accessibility of a bespoke shoemaker, we will never have shoes that look just like these. The problem is not in our wallets; it is in our soles.

Let me begin with a quote from The Suit in which our friend and colleague manton suggests: The foot being an ungainly thing , wise men seek out shoes that minimize its appearance. Bespoke shoes will always fit and feel best, because they are made on lasts carved to the exact requirements of actual feet. Most dandies believe that they also look better even though, by conforming so closely to the shape of your foot, they look quirky when compared to a standardized redy-made shoe.

There's the rub. Bespoke footwear is made to meet the unique needs and measurements of a single customer. A shoe that really provides the best fit and comfort closely conforms to the shape and mechanics of one's actual foot. Talented shoemakers can certainly use their skills to mitigate against ungainliness, but there is a tradeoff between look/style and comfort. Each of us has to determine where that line is, but there are certainly limits. In my own case, my right foot is a bit wider than my left, but more importantly my feet -- not terribly large -- are rather wide in the forefoot. This means there is only the shortest of distance between the widest part of my foot and the tip of my toe. It simply isn't possible to construct a shoe that matches this shape and has the sleekness some would favor or a keenly chiseled toe so very much in vogue, without compromising fit to a large degree. Inasmuch as my longest standing shoemaker (Cleverley) places a primacy on fit, they would undoubtedly caution me away from shoes and styles that would not be best for my particular foot. Other shoemakers have a somewhat different approach. As Tony Gaziano explained to manton in a January 2005 interview: "The service is for the customer so if he prefers shape over fit then I will veer more towards the aesthetics and fit is priority then I will still try to give good aesthetics but concentrate more on the fit, I prefer aesthetics. I love design and creation." That is not to say that Tony disregards fit, simply that he tries to strike a balance.

There is no question in my mind that a talented shoemaker -- and certainly both Cleverley and G&G -- can craft footwear that will enhance the look of one's foot while maintaining as much comfort as possible. Moreover, I believe that bespoke shoes -- because of their craftsmanship, quality, and inherent trimness -- will almost always look better on one than its ready-to-wear counterpart. But one needs to be mindful of the limitations.

There are a lucky few whose feet easily accomodate the most slender and elegant of styles. They are most fortunate. For the rest of us, the choice remains a bit of a trade-off. I fear that a number of individuals expect that a bespoke shoemaker can readily accomplish a perfect fit in any style...and these individuals may therefore be rather disappointed in the end. In any event, it is something to think about.

Originally Posted by medwards

Another Forum member just reminded me of an image I posted a few years back that showed the apparent difference in my Cleverley versus Gaziano shoes. The black calf imitation brogue Cleverley's on the left and the full brogued G&G Adelaides on the right were both made for me around the same time...and both actually fit quite well. However, you can clearly see the difference in look between the two. The shoes Tony made give the appearance of being a full size larger than the Cleverleys.

Originally Posted by medwards

Given the number of queries I have received, I should note that while these two shoes look to be of such different sizes, they both fit quite well. Cleverley has been making for me for a very long time and has fashioned most of my footwear. Over the years we have continued to tweak my last and it is as close to perfect as I can imagine. The Tony Gaziano-made shoes also fit quite well, just a bit differently. Please note that this was a conscious choice to craft them like this. Tony felt that a longer, somewhat larger shoe would provide a more appropriate backdrop for the design and the amount of broguing that I desired, added some substance and balance, and allowed a longer, more balanced line. I cannot explain how two such seemly different shoes can both fit well, but they do.

Originally Posted by medwards

I have always favored the rounded toe for aesthetic reasons as well as some practicality in terms of fit in my own specific case. My foot is rather wide in the forefoot and to craft an elegant chisel is -- to my eye -- a bit of a challenge and detracts a bit from the look and feel I like to achieve. To attain the sleekness and neatness I generally desire means elongating the shoe a bit to accomate keep the chisel in proportion and that creates certain trade-offs. I should also note that when I began availing myself of Cleverley's services, the chisel-toe was not really an approach they took or recommended...even though George Cleverley was still coming in once a week or so. Whether that was because they were bound by the traditional New & Lingwood look or other factors I cannot say. It is only after they established themselves as Cleverley in the mid-1990's that the "Cleverely toe" come into prominence among their offerings. By then, I had been a customer for quite some time and had no interest or desire in changing my style. That said, the chiseled toe can be quite elegant and would obviously be a good choice for many. As they say, to each his own.

/thread

 

[kolecho]

Hot topic!!

 

[TheTukker]

Originally Posted by Eustace Tilley

These are very, very, sweet.

 

[Michael Ay329]

Originally Posted by Panzeraxe II

Prior research is for peasants and lonely orphans.

Peasants and lonely orphans is inappropriate....I prefer to use the term "The Unwashed Massess."

 

[AncientSoul]

Originally Posted by Eustace Tilley

Am I going blind or is this a square toe?

Will I burn in sartorial hell for asking this question?

 

[fritzl]

Originally Posted by Eustace Tilley

So comparisons from prior clients on fit, customer service, effective design translation, willingness to fix mistakes etc. are meaningless to the discussion?

i didn't say that... ...particularly.

 

[fritzl]

Originally Posted by Eustace Tilley

Thanks Horns. Not sure what fritzl and you mean by a 'character pic."

a current one. this is new out of the box. i really would appreciate this. many thanks

feeding the "shoes with character" thread

 

[MarquisMagic]

Originally Posted by AncientSoul

Am I going blind or is this a square toe?

Will I burn in sartorial hell for asking this question?

No, it is a chiseled toe.

 

[medwards]

Originally Posted by Wes Bourne

/thread

I believe you have captured my experiences quite well above. Thank you, Wes Bourne. I am sure there are quite a few pictures of some of my Cleverley and Gaziano-made shoes elsewhere on this forum as well as others. They should give one a pretty good sense of the stylistic differences between the two -- though one should always be mindful that in bespoke footwear the customer plays (or at least can play) a significant role in the outward look and design of the shoe.

 

[Eustace Tilley]

Originally Posted by AncientSoul

Am I going blind or is this a square toe?

Cleverley likes to say they're 'suspiciously square'

fritzl: will snap a pic soon.

 

[fritzl]

Originally Posted by luk-cha

well as i have been told quite a few time is get both a see which you like best, as that is the only really way to tell which is better for you

from taking with alot of makers and Zee mostly (and if any one that know him will say he has seen a few feet in his 50 years of being in the shoe biz - and moans all the time about it too), knowing how different places people perceive fit of shoes is very important, some like a very short fit, perhaps like fritzl here with he austro-hungarian roots with shoes, other might like tight like a glove from my understanding is the American client, English may perfer a less glove/ snug like fit, i hear some Japanese perfer a longer looser fit etc.

these are just generalisations, but if the maker and client dont ask these questions or wrongly assume then you will never have a sucessfull outcome

just because G&G is (thus far) right for me doesn't mean theythe best in the world nor will fight to the death of any people that challenge this motion.

i think like suits, shoes also have a house fit and finding the right maker for you is more importand than which brand it is easy to say clev or G&G as each have their own plus's and minus's

best thing to do is meet with both and see which team takes you fancy

thank you for chiming in and delivering your exposure, it's appreciated as always.

it's just my assumption that from my personal experience the austro-hungarian is not explicit a short fit. interesting enough that Zee came to this conclusion, not that i would doubt his expertise. besides my personal preference for a roomy toe area, due to my wide forefoot, i was always under the impression this is "our" game.

 

[Northampton Novice]

Originally Posted by poorsod

When I asked Glasgow about how Cleverley was different from G&G he said they were not any different. Previous threads have commented that Cleverley leans to favor fit, while G&G leans to favor style. Personally I like the finishing of G&G over Cleverley. You should meet them both and decide whom you prefer to work with because the choice personal. Who do you trust to meet your needs?

I agree with the above.

 

[fritzl]

Originally Posted by Eustace Tilley

Cleverley likes to say they're 'suspiciously square'

fritzl: will snap a pic soon.

wonderful

 

[Philip1978]

Originally Posted by Renfield

I have the necessary experience, hence the response. I own several pairs from both these makers, also Fosters as mentioned by another poster.

How is a comparison in anyway meaningful though? They have different aesthetics, they're different makers.

Which is the best A&S or Huntsman? Blasi or Caracini?

There was nothing obnoxious in my response, it was an honest opinion. I don't see the point of the question, even though it's harmless. Ultimately you have to go with what moves you.

So maybe elaborate on your personal experience instead of just attacking.