[Leather man]

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.

I agree entirely with Rich's analysis. I have tried Loake 1880s but found the plastic middle to the heel and the lack of comfort underfoot too much to bear. I had been spoilt by Church's shoes by this time in my life. A friend of mine says " If you've never had shoes costing more than £130 then you'll like Loakes but if you have had shoes costing £200 you won't be happy with Loakes.

So, the moral of this is you may be very happy with Loakes and they certainly make some good looking shoes in the 1880 range but lets not pretend they're as good as shoes costing £250 plus - you do get what you pay for in the shoe world ( mostly!)

 

[Leather man]

Do you know for a fact that there is a plastic middle to the heel? The 1880s have the symbols that declare leather upper, inner and outer. Wouldn't a hidden plastic part to the heel put them in danger of contravening the Trade Descriptions Act ( if there is such a thing)? I'm assuming that you are speaking from having researched this, but it does seem bizarre for Loake to save what can't amount to very much per unit and risk losing custom as a result.

Can't agree. These days Loake and AEs are my shoes of choice, but back in the 70s I survived for 3 years on 3 pairs of Bally of Switzerland - a monk, a loafer and a laceup. They were good shoes. Much more expensive than Loake, aand certainly a lot daintier. But I doubt if I'd say thay were better quality or more comfortable. With a Loake you know you've got a serious pair of shoes on your feet!

Dear Hector - yes I have researched this in so far as I've owned three pairs of Loake 1880s - I thought I had stated I'd owned the shoes in my first post? I found walking in them uncomfortable at the heel so examined them careful prodding and poking the heel block and thus discovered the middle is plastic. My shoes are between 2 and 4 years old so maybe things have changed?

To answer your second matter you raise with me - please refer to my parenthesised comment - mostly

 

[Leather man]

So applying your logic then, you'd be happy to pay a ridiculous sums for a piar of, for example, Paul Smiths, and then what? Convince yourself that they are more comfortable than every other cheaper shoe simply because they cost more? Good luck with that. Seems to me like you've fallen victim to the type of shoe marketing that claims that quality costs! Which of course is nonsense. Labels and marketing are what cost, not quality.

And to conclude, I disagree with your last statement, "you get what you pay for". No, you don't. What you get is what the high end labels think the market can bear pricewise without pricing themselves out of business regardless of the quality of the shoe.

As I have said to Hector just now - please read again my original post where you will find in parenthesis the word "mostly"

 

[Leather man]

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.

I disagree. The law of diminishing returns does not kick in until you get to C&J /Church's - thereafter it does - as far as longevity is concerned anyway.

Loake 1880 are certainly a good entry level shoe in terms of English shoes but you can get much much better value for money with the Church's seconds that Herrings shoes sell on their website and they will last Hector much longer.

 

[Leather man]

Interesting and forthright. I might just buy a pair. If they are not in pristine condition 20 years from now I'll know who to come looking for!:icon_smile:

:icon_smile_big: