Edward Green Appreciation: Pictures, Info, and Where to Buy

[Vamp-ire]

You bargain hunt, you not always gonna end up with the optimal outcome. Someone once told me that after a while you won't be able to remember how much you spent on something that gives you enjoyment, so my advice would be that if you don't see yourself enjoying using the bag then get rid of it. No amount of validation via this web site or another will help if you can't stand to look at the damn thing on a daily basis.

That is all true! I'm just trying to get a few opinions, I sent the briefcase to a company that officially does bag repairs for LV, Chanel, etc. I didn't drop it off at any old cobbler.

 

[JFWR]

You may be underestimating the difference in leather quality between EG and Rockports. Rockport uses a corrected grain, at best. And, as I mentioned, there are many things that go into the making of a good shoe. In addition to upper quality, there's the pattern (Cheaper shoes often have extraneous seams on their uppers to same money.), the last designs, the time the uppers spend on the lasts (allowing the shoe to take on its curves and not look blobby), the lining's quality (full grain calfskin vs cloth, vinyl, pigskin, corrected grain, etc.), the stiffeners (hopefully leather vs fiberboard or plastic), the price of the labor involved, etc. And I would imagine that Dainite or Ridgeway is a more durable rubber than that used by Rockport, etc.

So to call EG's garbage based simply on one thing (cemented vs GYW shoes), is foolish. If you were speaking in hyperbole, fine. I just don't think we should overvalue GYW (which itself relies heavily on glue as the gemming glued to the insole) and we should appreciate clearly that there are many other things that distinguish shoes by EG from shoes by Rockport.

I don't think it's wise to expect higher quality based simply on price. As you know well, there are many designer brands with higher prices and lower quality than EG, but then one what one is really paying for is the brand name built by expensive ads, real estate, and celebrity endorsements.

The Rockport comment was hyperbole. Obviously EG makes nicer looking shoes than Rockport does with finer quality leather. But what about the entry level GYW market? Compare say an Allen Edmonds, Meermin, Cobbler Union, TLB Mallorca,

For instance, Allen Edmonds literally uses the same exact tannery as does Edward Green (annonay). Is the difference between the quality of their hides and the hides that EG get tremendously different? I wouldn't say enough to justify almost $1000 difference. I'd say EG has an advantage, but it doesn't have an overwhelming one here. Leather quality alone would not suffice to explain a difference in price if EG (which apparently it does not, nor does C&J) used cemented construction.

There would also be an incongruent combination if EG were to slap some cemented soles on there. You'd have this luxurious shoe given a crap sole which means that now the shoe is effectively a one in done, disposable shoe, rather than something you can expect to be wearing in 20 years. Part of the real value of a super nice pair of shoes is how they get more beautiful and comfortable year after year.

Thankfully this point is moot.

 

[JFWR]

For those of you who are interested, which appears to be a lot of you given this discussion, here is the full e-mail I received from Crockett and Jones this morning:

Dear James,

Thank you for your enquiry regarding our Aldershot boot. I can assure you that all our shoes and boots made 100% in our Northampton factory are Goodyear Welted. The Vibram Cleated sole is a rubber unit, therefore it is attached using an extremely strong and hardwearing adhesive, which is maybe where the confusion has arisen and why you cannot see the stitching as per our classic leather sole.

Aldershot is in fact even more hardwearing and durable for the winter months due to the storm welt for added waterproof protection.

Many thanks,
Antonia

----

@Jmr928 was correct.

The process (from what I understand it) looks like this:

The welt is attached to the upper via stitching. The welt and the midsole are also attached by stitching. With the vibram cleated shoes, they then attach that sole with a cementing to the mid sole, like a topy as JMR said.

Those soles are way too thick for anything to penetrate it with stitching.

 

[othertravel]

The Rockport comment was hyperbole. Obviously EG makes nicer looking shoes than Rockport does with finer quality leather. But what about the entry level GYW market? Compare say an Allen Edmonds, Meermin, Cobbler Union, TLB Mallorca,

For instance, Allen Edmonds literally uses the same exact tannery as does Edward Green (annonay). Is the difference between the quality of their hides and the hides that EG get tremendously different? I wouldn't say enough to justify almost $1000 difference. I'd say EG has an advantage, but it doesn't have an overwhelming one here. Leather quality alone would not suffice to explain a difference in price if EG (which apparently it does not, nor does C&J) used cemented construction.

There would also be an incongruent combination if EG were to slap some cemented soles on there. You'd have this luxurious shoe given a crap sole which means that now the shoe is effectively a one in done, disposable shoe, rather than something you can expect to be wearing in 20 years. Part of the real value of a super nice pair of shoes is how they get more beautiful and comfortable year after year.

Thankfully this point is moot.

Have you seen the quality of AE leathers lately? They don’t look good.

 

[downunderdoc]

For instance, Allen Edmonds literally uses the same exact tannery as does Edward Green (annonay). Is the difference between the quality of their hides and the hides that EG get tremendously different? I wouldn't say enough to justify almost $1000 difference. I'd say EG has an advantage, but it doesn't have an overwhelming one here.

Yeah I don't think there's much of a comparison between AE and EG skins...

 

[DB2000]

C&J is easily a higher quality leather in comparison to AE. It's not even close. I don't know about Alden because I only have shell from Alden. I imagine EG is just a tiny bit better leather than even C&J but not much.

 

[emptym]

I interpreted @wdahab’s comment to be talking about a rubber sole attached to a midsole, not about a fully cemented construction. Without cutting the shoe open though there is no way to confirm that there’s not a welted midsole there.

My understanding is that there are certain soles that aren’t possible to stitch through when you attach them and are always cemented to a midsole. Wedge soles come to mind. If I get a hand welted work boot with a wedge sole cemented to a midsole that doesn’t make it a cemented shoe. We also wouldn’t say that a hand welted shoe that has a topy added is a cemented piece of garbage either since the internal construction is the same.

Given shoefans description it sounds to me like he misunderstood the CJ workers to me. He emphasized that they’re still able to be resoled which would be the case because you just pop off the outsole and the midsole, welt and gemming stay intact (at least as long as the glue holding the gemming to the shoe holds up) like a topy.

Re: dainite, I’ve been told that dainite can’t have a flap cut open to have hidden stitching which is why they cut a channel for the stitching to sit deeper in some cases but not a closed channel.

Yes, I agree. Could you find/make any pics of a channel cut into Dainite? I think my Dainite soles are all stitched aloft, but I'm out of the county, so I can't check.

You can't really hand stitch a rubber sole, or make a channel stitch. A hand stitch would be ugly, so most bespoke makers would use a machine for that. I agree it would be nice, though.

To some extent, one could argue that cementing the sole to a midsole is actually just an extra, innecessary step that is increasing work and adding an extra process to the production.
Find nothing wrong with doing so on shoes for a technical reason. I also think there's a sense of functionality in it: slimmer waist and easier resoles at third parties. I've chosen this before.
If someone wants to buy a EG from me, dissect it, and finds the welting is a fake welt (full cemented with no functionality). I'd pay them double back. If it's not I would expect them to write a humble description of the truth here.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I've seen a pic of pair of Dainite soles with a hidden channel. @bengal-stripe or @ntempleman may know better.

Yes, I agree that there are some advantages to glued outsoles (or soles). I just think cost-cutting is one of them.

Yeah, all I can vouch for having seen was that the outsole wasn't stitched, nothing about the rest of the construction. And the boots were veldtschoen as well (as are these boots I have on order with Stefan) so the welt itself is hidden anyway.

In my best assumption is that everything about the construction is the same except for that one detail. And I would be willing to bet that this change is coming to the rest of the veldtschoen line, for resoling purposes.

Very good.

The Rockport comment was hyperbole.

Good.

For instance, Allen Edmonds literally uses the same exact tannery as does Edward Green (annonay). Is the difference between the quality of their hides and the hides that EG get tremendously different? I wouldn't say enough to justify almost $1000 difference. I'd say EG has an advantage, but it doesn't have an overwhelming one here. Leather quality alone would not suffice to explain a difference in price if EG (which apparently it does not, nor does C&J) used cemented construction.

This has been discussed many times before, but just two quick points: (1) the same tannery makes/sells hides at different levels of quality, and whereas one company (like Meermin or AE) might make two pairs of shoes out of each hide, another (like EG or GG) would make one. The first company would use the entire hide, while the second would only use the nicest parts (least blemishes, most consistent density, etc.). (2) As I've mentioned a couple of times, there are many other things that go into a shoe than the quality of the uppers. Personally, I'd much rather have a pair of completely cemented EGs (like the loafer models I posted earlier) than a pair of GYW Meermins.

Thank you for your enquiry regarding our Aldershot boot. I can assure you that all our shoes and boots made 100% in our Northampton factory are Goodyear Welted. The Vibram Cleated sole is a rubber unit, therefore it is attached using an extremely strong and hardwearing adhesive, which is maybe where the confusion has arisen and why you cannot see the stitching as per our classic leather sole.

The process (from what I understand it) looks like this:

The welt is attached to the upper via stitching. The welt and the midsole are also attached by stitching. With the vibram cleated shoes, they then attach that sole with a cementing to the mid sole, like a topy as JMR said.

Those soles are way too thick for anything to penetrate it with stitching.

That bolded part is a bit ambiguously worded. It may mean that all of their shoes and boots are GYW, but it qualifies this by saying "made 100% in our Northampton factory." Are all of their shoes and boots 100% made in that factory? Or are some wholly or partially made elsewhere? And, if so, are any of those not GYW? I'm guessing it was just worded poorly and the person was trying to say that all of their shoes are made in their Northampton factory and they're all GYW. But it might be worth following up to verify that.

 

[Sutefan]

That bolded part is a bit ambiguously worded. It may mean that all of their shoes and boots are GYW, but it qualifies this by saying "made 100% in our Northampton factory." Are all of their shoes and boots 100% made in that factory? Or are some wholly or partially made elsewhere? And, if so, are any of those not GYW? I'm guessing it was just worded poorly and the person was trying to say that all of their shoes are made in their Northampton factory and they're all GYW. But it might be worth following up to verify that.

They probably outsource parts or all of their production on shoes like velvet slippers, drivers and such.

Men's Velvet Slippers

The development of the Albert Slipper coincided with the fashion of wearing a smoking jackets. It is generally agreed that the style was named after Queen Victoria’s consort Prince Albert.

www.crockettandjones.com

Men's Driving Shoes

These soft, unstructured and ultra-comfortable loafers / moccasins were made famous by the Italians in the 1960s. They are typically adorned during the warm summer months.

www.crockettandjones.com

 

[Mr_Spud]

Yes, I agree. Could you find/make any pics of a channel cut into Dainite? I think my Dainite soles are all stitched aloft, but I'm out of the county, so I can't check.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I've seen a pic of pair of Dainite soles with a hidden channel. @bengalstripe or @ntempleman may know better.

Yes, I agree that there are some advantages to glued outsoles (or soles). I just think cost-cutting is one of them.

Very good.

Good.

This has been discussed many times before, but just two quick points: (1) the same tannery makes/sells hides at different levels of quality, and whereas one company (like Meermin or AE) might make two pairs of shoes out of each hide, another (like EG or GG) would make one. The first company would use the entire hide, while the second would only use the nicest parts (least blemishes, most consistent density, etc.). (2) As I've mentioned a couple of times, there are many other things that go into a shoe than the quality of the uppers. Personally, I'd much rather have a pair of completely cemented EGs (like the loafer models I posted earlier) than a pair of GYW Meermins.


That bolded part is a bit ambiguously worded. It may mean that all of their shoes and boots are GYW, but it qualifies this by saying "made 100% in our Northampton factory." Are all of their shoes and boots 100% made in that factory? Or are some wholly or partially made elsewhere? And, if so, are any of those not GYW? I'm guessing it was just worded poorly and the person was trying to say that all of their shoes are made in their Northampton factory and they're all GYW. But it might be worth following up to verify that.

Think some of their driving shoes are made in Italy.....

 

[Mr_Spud]

They probably outsource parts or all of their production on shoes like velvet slippers, drivers and such.

Men's Velvet Slippers

The development of the Albert Slipper coincided with the fashion of wearing a smoking jackets. It is generally agreed that the style was named after Queen Victoria’s consort Prince Albert.

www.crockettandjones.com

Men's Driving Shoes

These soft, unstructured and ultra-comfortable loafers / moccasins were made famous by the Italians in the 1960s. They are typically adorned during the warm summer months.

www.crockettandjones.com

He he jinx...

 

[florent]

Yes, I agree. Could you find/make any pics of a channel cut into Dainite? I think my Dainite soles are all stitched aloft, but I'm out of the county, so I can't check.

Most makers seem to stitch aloft for a reason I ignore but cutting a chanel is definitely possible

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I've seen a pic of pair of Dainite soles with a hidden channel. @bengalstripe or @ntempleman may know better.

I'd be curious to see that. Cutting a clean hidden channel in rubber would seem incredibly difficult (maybe a machine can do it?) and cementing rubber on rubber doesn't work too well, especially on small surfaces, so I'd be concerned about the flap reopening very quickly.

Yes, I agree that there are some advantages to glued outsoles (or soles). I just think cost-cutting is one of them.

Why do you think it would be cost-cutting? Basically with stitched outsole, you cement (both mid and outsole), then stitch. With cemented outsole, you stitch (the midsole), then cement (the outsole). Mayde that's over-simplification and there are some extra-steps?

 

[Thomas_M]

So basically it's just like a rubber toppy and this whole thing blew way out of proportions?
Sounds life Styleforum

 

[emptym]

Most makers seem to stitch aloft for a reason I ignore but cutting a chanel is definitely possible

I'd be curious to see that. Cutting a clean hidden channel in rubber would seem incredibly difficult (maybe a machine can do it?) and cementing rubber on rubber doesn't work too well, especially on small surfaces, so I'd be concerned about the flap reopening very quickly.


Why do you think it would be cost-cutting? Basically with stitched outsole, you cement (both mid and outsole), then stitch. With cemented outsole, you stitch (the midsole), then cement (the outsole). Mayde that's over-simplification and there are some extra-steps?

Wow, thanks for that pic. First I've seen. Who made those shoes, if you don't mind. I'd think it's be even tougher to cut a channel like that than the simple slice that a hidden channel would require. The channel would require two parallel cuts and for the grove to be consistently deep all around.

I think I have two pairs of shoes and two boots, all with Dainite stitched aloft, and I think they're wearing down more in the center than on the stitches. They're all over ten years old. I also have a pair of almost 15 yr old Rider Boots with a similar, Sestriere (sp?), sole. They've gotten a ton of use and the sole stitching (also aloft) is in good shape. I think it's worn away in a few small areas, but the sole shows no signs of wanting to separate. Those shoes are Blake-rapid, fwiw.

Interesting that rubber on rubber doesn't cement well. On the one pair of Dainite boots that I have with a midsole, the midsole is rubber. It's stitched. But I wonder if the C&G or EG boots that people have mentioned using a midsole have a rubber or a leather midsole.

Anyone know? And does anyone have a shot of a side view of those EG boots that have glued outsoles? Do they all actually have midsoles?

I was thinking it's cost-cutting because it's probably pretty difficult to stitch through a welt, midsole, and outsole together. Iirc, some makers hate or refuse to make or repair double-soled shoes. A readiness to do double soles is one reason Vass was so popular here years ago. I once had a pair of double-soled vintage Florsheim longwings resoled by my very skilled cobbler. He said he broke a few needles doing so. And Dainite alone is very tough rubber. I'd imagine it'd be much easier to glue it than to sew it. Maybe @Nick V. could confirm or deny.

 

[florent]

Wow, thanks for that pic. First I've seen. Who made those shoes, if you don't mind. I'd think it's be even tougher to cut a channel like that than the simple slice that a hidden channel would require. The channel would require two parallel cuts and for the grove to be consistently deep all around.

The picture is from a repairshop (here), it was just the most zoomed in I could find quickly. The channel is grooved by a machine, it's fairly easy.

I think I have two pairs of shoes and two boots, all with Dainite stitched aloft, and I think they're wearing down more in the center than on the stitches. They're all over ten years old. I also have a pair of almost 15 yr old Rider Boots with a similar, Sestriere (sp?), sole. They've gotten a ton of use and the sole stitching (also aloft) is in good shape. I think it's worn away in a few small areas, but the sole shows no signs of wanting to separate. Those shoes are Blake-rapid, fwiw.

That depends on your gait, some people wear down the center of their soles first, some people the sides (which deteriorate the stitching very quickly on Dainite)

Interesting that rubber on rubber doesn't cement well. On the one pair of Dainite boots that I have with a midsole, the midsole is rubber. It's stitched. But I wonder if the C&G or EG boots that people have mentioned using a midsole have a rubber or a leather midsole.

Anyone know? And does anyone have a shot of a side view of those EG boots that have glued outsoles? Do they all actually have midsoles?

Every double soled shoes I personally resoled (including C&J and EG) had a leather or leatherboard midsole. However I think rubber midsoles are a thing, in wedge soles for instance. I have no idea what kind of cement they use but it's a much larger area to hold things together.

I was thinking it's cost-cutting because it's probably pretty difficult to stitch through a welt, midsole, and outsole together. Iirc, some makers hate or refuse to make or repair double-soled shoes. A readiness to do double soles is one reason Vass was so popular here years ago. I once had a pair of double-soled vintage Florsheim longwings resoled by my very skilled cobbler. He said he broke a few needles doing so. And Dainite alone is very tough rubber. I'd imagine it'd be much easier to glue it than to sew it. Maybe @Nick V. could confirm or deny.

Stitched rubber soles are so ubiquitous that I would imagine industrial makers have the right machinery to avoid breaking too many needles in the process but I'm just guessing here.

 

[JFWR]

Yes, I agree. Could you find/make any pics of a channel cut into Dainite? I think my Dainite soles are all stitched aloft, but I'm out of the county, so I can't check.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I've seen a pic of pair of Dainite soles with a hidden channel. @bengal-stripe or @ntempleman may know better.

Yes, I agree that there are some advantages to glued outsoles (or soles). I just think cost-cutting is one of them.

Very good.

Good.

This has been discussed many times before, but just two quick points: (1) the same tannery makes/sells hides at different levels of quality, and whereas one company (like Meermin or AE) might make two pairs of shoes out of each hide, another (like EG or GG) would make one. The first company would use the entire hide, while the second would only use the nicest parts (least blemishes, most consistent density, etc.). (2) As I've mentioned a couple of times, there are many other things that go into a shoe than the quality of the uppers. Personally, I'd much rather have a pair of completely cemented EGs (like the loafer models I posted earlier) than a pair of GYW Meermins.


That bolded part is a bit ambiguously worded. It may mean that all of their shoes and boots are GYW, but it qualifies this by saying "made 100% in our Northampton factory." Are all of their shoes and boots 100% made in that factory? Or are some wholly or partially made elsewhere? And, if so, are any of those not GYW? I'm guessing it was just worded poorly and the person was trying to say that all of their shoes are made in their Northampton factory and they're all GYW. But it might be worth following up to verify that.

To quote their website:

All Goodyear welted shoes & boots are 100% made in Northampton, England. Slippers & Driving shoes are outsourced to specialist manufacturers.

So, in light of that I think it's fair that's what she meant.

As for the other points: part of the reason eg and other higher end rtw shoemakers are worth buying is quality construction. Why invest in a high end shoe if it's made to be thrown out? I don't think just the aesthetics matter here, nor does the name matter by itself.

Eg makes beautiful and well crafted shoes. If you take away the well crafted, comparable aesthetics can be readily had elsewhere.

I also will say choosing the choicest bit of the hide is only an issue if the hide is flawed enough to make a difference. The concerns with lower tier shoes is spotty detailing, not usually flaws in the calf. Ae quality issues usually come from the Dr stitchers not doing good work, but the calf is normally quite nice

Compare two contemporary skins from the same tannery and there is not a huge difference. Generally that only shows up in different years. Calfskin on vintage aes and florsheims used to be finer, from probably older and more toxic methods and even climate. My 88 ae Chesters are insanely nice, probably for a number of reasons.

Age of the cows matter also. German calf is nicer as veal comes from younger cows there. This, c and j handgrade calf is somewhat finer than it's benchgrade from France.