[Rich]

In my experience Loake's 1880 range meet the minimum requirements for a dress shoe. Their cheaper ranges have too much flimsy and/or synthetic (i.e., ugly and non-durable) materials, in particular nasty linings that don't breath, and cardboard-like soles - a false economy.

 

[Rich]

But for me the law of diminishing return means that Loake 1880s is as high as I want to go.

This is sensible. Loake 1880s are classic, good value for money and widely available cut-price. You will be, nine times out of ten, the best-shod man in the office. I would recommend them as a first venture into quality shoes. The next step, when you're ready, being to get a pair of Church's or C&J in the same style for comparison... But you can skip the lower end Loakes.

 

[Rich]

You've obviously made the comparison, Rich. In your experience, then, just how much better are Church and C& J? A difficult question I know but we are talking about comparisons here. BTW do you have any well-worn Church and C&KJ that you can photo and then post the pics to give me an idea of how an upgrade would look in 5 or 10 years time? It'd be appreciated.

Here are some differences between Loake and Church's (similar models).

It's mostly a question of materials and finishing, I think:

Loake uppers are thinner, less even-grained (so they crease unevenly) and drier/stiffer-looking, and the colour is not so deep or rich as on Church's. The stitching is finer and more carefully done on Church's. Loake soles are a little stiffer and less comfortable to walk in. Church's heels are dense and make a very nice "leathery" sound when walking versus Loake's drier sound. Church's lining is superior - silky to the touch against Loake's smooth but slightly "plasticky" feel. Church's seem to breathe a bit better - they are certainly much, much more comfortable in hot weather. New Church's smell strongly of leather: new Loakes smell of leather too, but also of chemicals - glue, plasticizers maybe. Church's shoes are a bit heavier overall, more substantial. Having a lot of dress shoes I've never worn a pair enough to wear them out, so I can't compare ultimate durability. Comfort and appearance are my priorities. I'll see if I can manage some pics.

 

[Rich]

I have two pairs of Loakes (Durham and Aldwych). I've been buying all-leather dress shoes for about 20 years, since I decided to wear a suit to work every day. Before that I bought mostly casual rubber-soled shoes. I have about 20 pairs of good dress shoes in rotation. The oldest of these, a pair of Church's monks, have had three sets of Topys and new heels, but the uppers and linings are in perfect condition. They have stretched a bit though...

 

[Rich]

Do those of you who own Loake 1880s and Church's find the same difference in sizing as me? I take a Church's size 8.5 but a Loake size 8 - a good half size difference. Oh, and there is indeed a lump of plastic in the heels of my 1880s - well disguised.

The question of where the law of diminishing returns becomes critical is an interesting one. This is bound to be very subjective, and obviously depends on resources and priorities. Church's being roughly double the price of Loakes 1880, I can understand people stopping at Loakes. 1880s cost only about 50% more than rubbish. Also, when you start moving up the ladder it's difficult to climb down again! I'd say if you're a fairly conservative, suit-wearing sort of person, then Loake 1880 are the cheapest shoes that won't let you down socially or professionally and you won't be thoroughly disappointed with (plastic heels notwithstanding... though if I'd known...)

 

[Rich]

I dare not go further.

Hmm... we'll see!

Incidentally, I've just inspected another pair of Loakes I have, the Dainite-soled Badminton wing-tip brogue. They too have a plastic layer in the heel, and what appears to be a plastic welt strip! They also have part-cloth lining, and the uppers are a bit stiff. Good value for money for a pair of gardening shoes, yes. Just acceptable as casual wear.