I doubt they're EG.

 

I doubt they're EG.

Any particular reason? I won't be too disappointed. I understand the argument against them being EG, they aren't purple label. I do know that the shoe is stamped 'Made in England', the only English shoemakers I can find that use the dainite sole in a production model are Loake, C&J and EG, and the stitching around the eylets resembles that of EG oxfords.

 

1) text on the inside of the shoe doesn't look like EG - they typically put the information in a cut-out oval.

2) the last doesn't look like an EG last

 

1) text on the inside of the shoe doesn't look like EG - they typically put the information in a cut-out oval.

This should have given it away.

2) the last doesn't look like an EG last

You have a keener eye than me. We'll see if they were worth the $25 when they get here.

Sincerely,

The newbie who probably just wasted a few dollars.

 

Crockett & Jones
(check the sans serif font on the sock liner)
Bookbinder leather (aka corrected grain)
Discontinued model of unknown provenance
...most likely early nineties. I'm also guessing these lack full leather linings.

 

Apologies for breaking the news. Notice the printed nomenclature on the side lining. Neither EG or C&J. Both have hand written nomenclature. These were originally around $300 - $350? I do not know if PRL continues to sell this line, or who makes/made it. Did so a few years ago. Perhaps this is an example of the Sanders for Polo line mentioned in other threads. Notice the rather hard, shiny surface that mimics cordovan? Large stitching on the uppers. Numerous other visual indiciations. EG & C&J have a more elegant shape. On the plus side they appear to have a 360 storm welt and the same Dainite sole as more expensive informal shoes. The lining appears to be in relatively good shape. Sorry they weren't originally twice as much at retail.

 

Apologies for breaking the news. Notice the printed nomenclature on the side lining. Neither EG or C&J. Both have hand written nomenclature. These were originally around $300 - $350? I do not know if PRL continues to sell this line, or who makes/made it. Did so a few years ago. Perhaps this is an example of the Sanders for Polo line mentioned in other threads. Notice the rather hard, shiny surface that mimics cordovan? Large stitching on the uppers. Numerous other visual indiciations. EG & C&J have a more elegant shape. On the plus side they appear to have a 360 storm welt and the same Dainite sole as more expensive informal shoes. The lining appears to be in relatively good shape. Sorry they weren't originally twice as much at retail.

i think C&J uses printed nomenclature on their shoes - my weymouths from edmorel are printed, not scripted.

in any event, a good buy at sub-$25

 

I don't know what the original retail was on these or when PRL carried the shoe - that would have made it easier to identify the manufacturer. I admit I was looking more at the stitch pattern, style, and sole rather than the shape of the shoe, leather and quality of the stitch.

To make this a worthwhile learning experience: I still have trouble telling (in pictures) the difference between the look of corrected grain and full-grain leather. I've tried to use the reflection as a clue, but as I understand it, a lot of that depends on the degree of plastic coating on the shoe (i.e. a shoe could be corrected grain, and not look like patent-leather as these shoes do). Maybe I'm being vain in looking for non-corrected grain leather. I'm new to dressing well on a regular basis; prior to graduating college my dressier clothes and shoes rarely needed to last a few wearings before I grew out of them. Most nights out in school rarely required more than flipflops. What I want: shoes that will 1.) not look like patent leather and 2.) last a long time (I have many years of work ahead of me, that will require wearing dress shoes on a daily basis).

As for the shoes: I can always just clean them up and eBay them to someone else. I'll lose out on the shipping cost, but I've done worse things on eBay before.

 

i think C&J uses printed nomenclature on their shoes - my weymouths from edmorel are printed, not scripted.

in any event, a good buy at sub-$25

Thank you for the correction. My C&J are all Polo, and scribed since the mid 80's. I'd noticed Ben Silver catalogue photos of C&Js with printed nomenclature, but thought those were photos sourced from C&J samples. Most all English shoes above a certain level are scribed. ?????????

 

I don't know what the original retail was on these or when PRL carried the shoe - that would have made it easier to identify the manufacturer. I admit I was looking more at the stitch pattern, style, and sole rather than the shape of the shoe, leather and quality of the stitch.

To make this a worthwhile learning experience: I still have trouble telling (in pictures) the difference between the look of corrected grain and full-grain leather. I've tried to use the reflection as a clue, but as I understand it, a lot of that depends on the degree of plastic coating on the shoe (i.e. a shoe could be corrected grain, and not look like patent-leather as these shoes do). Maybe I'm being vain in looking for non-corrected grain leather. I'm new to dressing well on a regular basis; prior to graduating college my dressier clothes and shoes rarely needed to last a few wearings before I grew out of them. Most nights out in school rarely required more than flipflops. What I want: shoes that will 1.) not look like patent leather and 2.) last a long time (I have many years of work ahead of me, that will require wearing dress shoes on a daily basis).

As for the shoes: I can always just clean them up and eBay them to someone else. I'll lose out on the shipping cost, but I've done worse things on eBay before.

Visit better shoe or leather furniture stores and ask to see aniline/analine dyed calfskin. Look for an older man who looks like he might know his business. Or just look into the leather of shoes retailing above $350. Aniline dyeing is a process of letting the leather soak in the dye instead of the color being sprayed on. Calfskin is finer and more supple than cow. French calf is generally considered better. Aniline calf has a fine grained almost translucent surface, especially in shades of brown/tan. You can look into the leather and see fine variations in color. Usually when new a low gloss or almost matte finish. In some ways, similar to looking at a fine wood grain. The exception being some very expensive shoes that have gone through an antiquing process with a high gloss shine. Request a Lands' End catalogue and look at their French calf shoes for $150. There are often dress shoes for less than $100 in the overstock section. I have no experience with them, but they appear to be good value. Once you've educated yourself, then you can look for bargains on eBay. Eschew most shiny, excepting real cordovan. You also need to talk with a shoe repairman about what to look for in resolable shoes. Not as easy as looking at ebay photos, but.....

 

In the pics I see nothing to indicate these shoes are either Polo or Made in England. The Dainite sole says "British Made", I know. I wonder if there's more writing inside (or on the tongue) that we're not seeing.

The liner makes the shoes look only minimally worn, so they are a good deal at 25.

 

Appears to say Made in England on the right wall of the right shoe. I can also just barely see the "Polo" name on the sock liner for that same shoe (I had to enlarge the second picture to see this). They look like shoes that I had seen in the Polo Factory stores back in the mid-90's. Decent shoes, but not quite as good as the C&J's for Polo over the past decade or so. If they are the same as the ones I used to see in the outlets, the leather insole will be a bit rough and the bottom of the heel (is that the "heel lift"?) would not be leather with a rubber dovetail; would instead be all rubber (which I prefer for surfaces that are slipper with leather heels). All my C&J's for Polo have the scripted nomenclature, but I guess that they could have made these, anyway. Definitely not EG.