[Hector Freemantle]

I have never owned a pair of Loake shoes. Its been a conscious decision.

Yes, there's certainly no bragging rights that go with buying a pair of Loakes. :icon_smile_big:

 

[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.

 

[Earl of Ormonde]

I am not a big fan........ I don't think the quality is that great.

Based on what? And are you referring to relative quality or quality per se as a product?

 

[Earl of Ormonde]

And they are men's shoes. For me the dainty waists of some higher end shoes are no attraction at all being more suited to women's shoes in my estimation.

THANK YOU Hector, that was EXACTLY what I was trying to put my finger on but couldn't quite identify, especially with Sargents and 2 or 3 of the
other high end brands; that feeling that they just look old fashioned and slightly feminine - which was quite Edwardian actually, so I suppose that is what makes them look old fashioned. I conclude that the two go hand in hand.
"Too dainty, too dandyish" would be a good way to précis it then.

 

[Hector Freemantle]

THANK YOU Hector, that was EXACTLY what I was trying to put my finger on but couldn't quite identify, especially with Sargents and 2 or 3 of the
other high end brands; that feeling that they just look old fashioned and slightly feminine - which was quite Edwardian actually, so I suppose that is what makes them look old fashioned. I conclude that the two go hand in hand.
"Too dainty, too dandyish" would be a good way to précis it then.

In an historical sense perhaps we ought to say: " Too feminine, too foppish."

The dandy was perhaps an often unfairly maligned creature.

But back to Loakes. I wonder if they made a conscious decision to make footwear that appealed to those less in touch with their feminine sides? Or were they merely producing solid, yet handsome, encasings for the feet that actually could be worn on pavements rather than being reserved for mincing around on oriental ruggery?

 

[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!)

 

[Hector Freemantle]

... I have tried Loake 1880s but found the plastic middle to the heel and the lack of comfort underfoot too much to bear. ...

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.

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.

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!

 

[Groover]

We've been down this road before:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=79114&highlight=Loake

IMO, the 1880 range are nice shoes, good styling and comfortable lasts. However, the leather is NOT up to the quality of Church's, C&J (standard range), and the higher end manufacturers.

What I am NOT saying is that they're a poor shoe because they're not and hell I've had enough pairs to know. But having my Loake Norwich and my C&J hand in hand the leather is better on the C&J, hence the difference in price.

With the British shoe industry (in Northampton that is) being so incestuous the price difference between the remaining manufacturers comes down to two fundamental costs:

Cost of materials.
Volume of work undertaken.

As Tricker (on the other thread) stated, all manufacturers are fighting for each others business, and each manufacturer has it's own place in that market. That was one of the reasons discussed about the Sargents downfall in that they didn't have that market place, but I digress. Tricker stated that the skins all come from more or less the same place so it depends on the quality purchased to reflect in the finished shoe. In addition, companies with high volume can offer lower prices but certainly not to the tune of 100-150 in the difference between Loake & C&J for instance.

That said I'm still happy to buy Loakes whilst in the sales, there's some good deals out there.

 

[Earl of Ormonde]

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!)

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.

 

[Hector Freemantle]

This is what Tricker said:

Basically we are all copying each others shoes to try to get business, thats how it works, some factories are more geared towards certain styles though, or have certain shapes of last that buyers prefer, we all source the same materials, and the only difference really is that your lobbs and greens are hand lasted and all the rest use a '4A' pull toe laster to automate lasting, we all machine welt and sole stitch, unless you order handmades, then they are hand lasted and hand welted to a hand made insole, still machine stitched though.

 

[Groover]

This is what Tricker said:

And this:

EG and Lobbs shoes are more traditionally made than ours, they are bedlasted, pulled on by hand, Lobbs make 100 pairs per day, EG less, something between 20 and 50 per day, there are more man hours going into their shoes, more hand work at lasting, and a lot more time spent on finishing them after the shoe is constructed, they are more likely to use only the most expensive leathers as they can sell more of these at higher prices due to their name, and hand lasting methods, so yes, they are using better leathers than say 50% of other shoes being made elsewhere, but the price offsets this, the others are using these materials for their top lines only.

When you last by hand you can use more delicate leathers, if you put that same leather into a machine laster, you are inevitably going to have some damages, which costs money, so a more durable leather is used, this work isnt suitable for a lot of the bigger manufacturers who make more pairs per day to fulfill orders, its really only for lobbs and greens to make. We make 200 pairs a day, C&J over 400 pairs a day, churches similar, its just not practical for us to make this shoe on a regular basis. A hand lasted shoe is far superior to a machine lasted shoe, it gives a much better feather, enabling a much closer stitch and trim, and is an artform, the true skill of shoe making that hasnt changed for hundreds of years.

An example of why some brands are cheaper than others is that most of the cheaper lines are stitched aloft, where the groove is cut into the sole as it is rounded, and then stitched into the groove, if the shoe is channelled it is slit when rounded, then opened on another machine, stitched , then solutioned inside the channel, then rubbed down when dry, also 90% of our channel have a 'london waist' which is bevelled, and more time is taken to build this up, then the finished sole will be hand inked in a fancy design, obviously the cost of these man hours have to be passed onto the customer.

That pair of loakes posted is an example of this, they are stitched aloft with basic wheeled design on the bottom, its much faster to make. Also some companies have to lower prices to stay in business, the shoe trade is dire nowadays, in years to come there will only be the likes of lobbs and greens left that are made in england, we closed one of our english shops the other year, not enough business in the UK, most of our work is for Japan, same as a few others, luckily for us they are absolutely crazy about english shoes. Ive already been made redundant once, some guys i work with have had it twice, experience is nearly non existent now when looking for workers as people are unwilling to risk redundancy in their later years. Ive had to be loaned out to Lobbs before to do some sewing for them after hours when their guy left to go work at greens, and last year C&J were prepared to take someone off the street to teach welt sewing, the average age of the workers in some places is 55, so its not looking good.

 

[Hector Freemantle]

Thanks, Groover. So we are looking at better leather and more handworking = more cost= higher price.

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

Having said that I would be interested in seeing photos of well- worn higher end shoes. For me durability is very important. Waste not:want not.

 

[Groover]

Thanks, Groover. So we are looking at better leather and more handworking = more cost= higher price.

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

Having said that I would be interested in seeing photos of well- worn higher end shoes. For me durability is very important. Waste not:want not.

Yes Hector, that is in essence the nature of the business in Northampton. As I said in my earlier post, each manufacturer has it's own "section" of the market. Considering the UK shoe industry has been in decline for a long long time each firm has had to market itself and position itself very carefully to the point where each has it's own part and from what we can see in the current climate is surviving off it.

I would say that would be true for the tanneries also, they need to supply products to suit all customers. As Tricker said, Greens and Lobb etc buy the expensive skins because they know they can make a return on them, whereas Loakes, C&J, Church's et all wouldn't be making the required level of profit to justify the expense, so in turn use the other grades of skin available and have manufacturing processes to maximise their product output.

He also pointed out that all manufacturers had the capability to produce any shoe as good as they wanted to, essentially they have access to the same products and use the same processes, which I beleive can only be a good thing as it raises the bar for eveyone to stay on their toes.

You're clearly happy with your Loakes and that's a good thing. As a company they seem to be doing well, so I guess the old saying "If something aint broke, don't fix it" would be their motto. The new website is good with some videos on how shoes are made.

 

[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.

 

[Hector Freemantle]

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.

 

[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.

 

[gnatty8]

Thanks, Groover. So we are looking at better leather and more handworking = more cost= higher price.

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

Having said that I would be interested in seeing photos of well- worn higher end shoes. For me durability is very important. Waste not:want not.

Do you know what you are asking for? I am not sure such a thing exists on the fora, or potentially, even the internets themselves..

 

[Hector Freemantle]

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.

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: