I'm sure that someone with more detailed knowledge concerning the production of each will offer better information, but from my rather casual perspective, EG offers somewhat more elegant lasts, finer detail in construction and perhaps slightly rarer materials than C&J's top-line Handgrade, but both are superb.

 

If you were to have a shoe from each in your hand, would you be able to point out these qualitative differences?

 

If you were to have a shoe from each in your hand, would you be able to point out these qualitative differences?

That would depend on how much you paid me!

I would try, but I fully acknowledge that my opinion is entirely subjective, and more informed wearers might disagree. One thing I find characteristic of EG is that they usually look more delicate in a positive way than many shoes, but that is clearly subjective.

 

I'm sure that someone with more detailed knowledge concerning the production of each will offer better information, but from my rather casual perspective, EG offers somewhat more elegant lasts, finer detail in construction and perhaps slightly rarer materials than C&J's top-line Handgrade, but both are superb.

I hear the word elegant bandied around when talking about shoes, especially it seems, Edward Greens. EG shoes/lasts are almost always referred to as more elegant than those to which they are being compared. What exactly does it mean? Is it an entirely subjective term, or is there a characteristic that can be pointed out that denotes elegance (in a shoe)? This is not an attack on EG - I'm just something of a curious shoe newbie.

 

fit

A few years ago I special-ordered a pair of size 10 E CJ Whithalls (a cap toe oxford) through Ben Silver, after returning the 10 D's which is the size Ben Sliver normally stocks. I wore them a few times. Although the fit was an improvement over that of the 10 D's, the shoes are uncomfortably tight.

Subsequently I was able to get Edward Greens in a size/last combination (10 F/202) that is a very comfortable fit. I have tried other makes of US and UK-manufactured shoes and nothing except custom-made fits as well as the EG's.

Many who post here about shoes speak well of CJ's fit. I may have peculiar feet.

I cannot comment objectively on the CJ's vs. the EG's with respect to elegance or other subjective considerations, in part because I know which shoes are which brands. Perhaps a double or triple blind test would yield useful information.

I do like how the CJ's look when worn. I just can't walk very far in them. Reginald can wear them to the McKillops' garden party.

Regards,
Gurdon

 

. . . . more elegant than those to which they are being compared. What exactly does it mean? Is it an entirely subjective term,

I think it is essentially subjective, though there may be some broad general agreement. EG may likely be thought elegant by many, Crocs by far fewer.

Another exercise for this comparison might be to go to website featuring each. Pediwear shows a good assorment of C&J, and Leathersoul has some elegant EG's. I can clearly see a difference. Can you?

 

My reason for strtig this post is I have seen both lines of shoes in person at Skyvalet. I too am having a difficult time finding a pair that fit in the C&J because of the narrow width that most models are offered. I find both to be very elegant but I do no see a difference which supports the $300 or more price difference.

 

This site (it's in French)



took apart EGs and C&Js and found one particular difference: it seems C&J buys in some pre-assembled components from Bartoli, presumably as a cost-reduction initiative. Both manufacturers were equally criticised for their reliance on toe caps to which thermoformed materials had been glued.

EGs are far less widely distributed generally than C&J, so this adds to an aura of exclusivity in their RTW collection, an aura supported by a substantial price premium. Also, they are better known for their MTO offerings than C&J, and this aura of craftsmanship percolates down to their RTW line, in a way reminiscent of a bespoke maker's RTW offerings.

So the price premium would appear to be mainly a marketing-driven one.

 

If you are speaking of Crockett & Jones Hand-grade shoes there is very little that separates them from Edward Green which may or may not justify the $300 difference in price. The main difference which has been cited before is that Edward Green's lasts are considered by many to be far more elegant that C&J. Another difference would be the hand burnishing of the calfskin uppers. Edward Green does a much better job than C&J of antiquing the uppers to create a rich and complex patina where sometimes C&J can be a slight bit sloppy. Also, from my experience the seams on the back of the shoe on the top of the heel are often cleaner and more precise on EG over C&J. However, unless you like a particular model of Edward Green more than Crockett & Jones I would not pay the extra money for such minor differences.

 

The waist on each shoe is different. EG can be obtained with a fiddled waist and the sole of the shoe also displays this feature. I have not seen this a C&J HG shoe before. maybe they do it but not regularly.

 

While Edward Green may have more models on a very elegant last C&J does have a few models which are just as elegant. While in Skyvalet, I didn't really see a noticeable difference in the level of finishing. I suspect most people assume that because of the price difference one is automatically better made than the other. I will admit that all of Edward Green shoes come on an elegant last where as some of the C&J have a more rounded toe.

 

The waist on each shoe is different. EG can be obtained with a fiddled waist and the sole of the shoe also displays this feature. I have not seen this a C&J HG shoe before. maybe they do it but not regularly.

That is a good point. I don't believe either that C&J manufactures shoes with a fiddle back sole but that type of sole is only available on EG made to order program but many of their standard RTW models feature beveled waists.

 

I wouldn't say the EG lasts are more elegant. I'd just say they're more classic. A lot of the C&J lasts are quite "sleek" compared to the EG lasts. Even the 337 from C&J is sleek compared to, say, the 808 last from EG.

Aside from the aforementioned differences, I basically think that C&J is a tad more susceptible to what's the "taste" of the day (ex: Last 348) whereas EG continues to do their own thing.

Of course I could be completely wrong since I don't know when any of these lasts were first created. Just going by what my eyes tell me.

 

If you were to have a shoe from each in your hand, would you be able to point out these qualitative differences?

I own two pairs of C&J shoes. Recently I had the opportunity to inspect and try on a pair of EG. Yes, you can tell the difference.

 

I've got several pairs of C&J Handgrades and two pairs of Edward Green.

The differences are subtle more than anything else in my opinion.

1. Edward Green waists are finished better. The waist on C&J HG used to bevel now they're virtually flat.

2. The welts are cut closer to the upper on EG.

3. EG use leather stiffeners in the Heel providing much more support (for me at least). The stiffener extends futher into the quarters of the shoe than the type used in C&J

4. The finishing is better on the EG's. I've noticed recently that the HG's finishing doesn't seem as nice as the shoes they were producing 2 years ago.

For some these may only be minor detail, but in my opinion the EG are a step up in terms of overall quality.

 

I was hoping to get a consensus from those who have owned or purchased shoes in the quality of EG, Lobbs and above.

Do you still look back and continue to purchase cheaper shoes (such as C&J, Grensons etc) or do you burn all bridges once you have tasted the best of the best.

 

I would give EG the edge based on the leather quality, leather coloring and finishing (both upper and sole), the lasts, design, and general attention to detail.

E.g., EG makes a conventional monk shoe just like any other manufacturer. But one of its models has the strap narrow at the buckle holes. This small design element is not in the C & J catalogue.

Overall EG have a special look which sets it apart from C & J.

However, C & J Handgrades are an excellent, traditional, conservative shoe, and I have many of them.

 

I would give EG the edge based on the leather quality, leather coloring and finishing (both upper and sole), the lasts, design, and general attention to detail.
. . .

Overall EG have a special look which sets it apart from C & J.
. . .

However, C & J Handgrades are an excellent, traditional, conservative shoe, and I have many of them.

I'd say Brummell's assessment is spot-on. I have several pairs of C&J Benchgrade and Handgrade shoes, EGs, and Lobbs. I dont think I'm qualified to comment on the leather quality, but IMHO the leather coloring and finishing on the EG uppers and soles is much better on the brown and tan shoes that I have than the C&Js (which I find somewhat dull in comparison when NIB). My comments exclude black shoes - black leathers all look the same to me.

The Lobb antiquing is also in a class by itself. I have a pair of EG Malvern Twill Spectators with a lovely patina around the toe box, but again, IMHO, Parisian brown museum calf is the cat's ass, the bee's knees, etc.

Generally speaking, my C&Js develop a nice patina over time, but my EGs/Lobbs seem to come patina-ready.

 

I was hoping to get a consensus from those who have owned or purchased shoes in the quality of EG, Lobbs and above.

Do you still look back and continue to purchase cheaper shoes (such as C&J, Grensons etc) or do you burn all bridges once you have tasted the best of the best.

Your question is spot on and the answer to it answers your original post. I own loads of Edward Green shoes, three C&J handgrade shoes and loads of Church's shoes, plus 12 pairs of Gaziano and Girling shoes. All answers are subjective - apart from informed opinon of quality of materials. So here's what I think:

I do not now buy C&J handgrades ( partly because of them being too narrow to be honest) , so more relevantly I've stopped buying Church's - I've been spoilt! Edward Green has spoilt me - they are lovely lovely shoes. One must wear them not just look at them to find the difference and discover why they cost so much more. They fit the foot better than C&J and just feel "right". If you'd never had EGs you'd be very happy with handgrade C&Js provided your feet fit the one width they do!

And that's the other thing about EG and G&G I so value - you can ask for any width fitting there is and they'll do it for you without the astronomical surcharge C&J ask for. G&G is just as good. Steve on Leffot blog makes the same point about G&G

Finally EG tell me their leather is better quality and that the higher quality leather you want the less of it there is at market so operations any bigger than them just cannot obtain the best leather. I suspect the sole leather, whilst very good on Handgrades is also better on EG but no proof of that.

So much more I could say but I've bored you enough now!

TTFN!

 

Your question is spot on and the answer to it answers your original post. I own loads of Edward Green shoes, three C&J handgrade shoes and loads of Church's shoes, plus 12 pairs of Gaziano and Girling shoes. All answers are subjective - apart from informed opinon of quality of materials. So here's what I think:

I do not now buy C&J handgrades ( partly because of them being too narrow to be honest) , so more relevantly I've stopped buying Church's - I've been spoilt! Edward Green has spoilt me - they are lovely lovely shoes. One must wear them not just look at them to find the difference and discover why they cost so much more. They fit the foot better than C&J and just feel "right". If you'd never had EGs you'd be very happy with handgrade C&Js provided your feet fit the one width they do!

And that's the other thing about EG and G&G I so value - you can ask for any width fitting there is and they'll do it for you without the astronomical surcharge C&J ask for. G&G is just as good. Steve on Leffot blog makes the same point about G&G

Finally EG tell me their leather is better quality and that the higher quality leather you want the less of it there is at market so operations any bigger than them just cannot obtain the best leather. I suspect the sole leather, whilst very good on Handgrades is also better on EG but no proof of that.

So much more I could say but I've bored you enough now!

TTFN!

Not boring at all! Thank you for your input.

 

We interrupt this thread to bring you pictures of my first EGs. A very powerful gateway moment that got me into higher end shoes.

I have both C&J and EG and can't articulate all the differences but I think the quality of the hides, finishing and last shapes on EG are superior. Plus EG's age beautifully. I would say EG is worth the list price and is a fantastic value if you can get them on sale. All around EG is my favorite shoe. Finally, the smell of a a new pair of EGs right out of the box is my favorite smell in the world. Ok this may be getting weird I will stop writing now.

 

I find the leather used in EG's shoes to be a step above. Plus the antiquing and finishing of the leather is superb, and virtually non-existent in C&Js. But I like them both.

 

I'm not a fan of the artificial antiquing. It's like buying ripped jeans. The antiqued/patina look should come with time. It's part of the joy of moving through life with a pair of shoes that you've had for a long time. The whole "pre-antiqued" thing is rubbish.

@CrackedCrab,
Your shoes are lovely. The last is marvelous and they look great. But again with the severely antiqued toe in comparison with the rest of the shoe. It just looks off, but that's just my opinion.

This isn't to say that I dislike EG or Lobb or anything, I just don't like things that are new, but are made in a way so that they look old and worn (like ripped jeans).

 

Leather man
How much more do EG charge for a different width? I have not appreciated this. I could do this for my next EG, whenever that is.

Cracked crab
you have exactly the pair that I have. Did you consider the suede in the same model? I find these just a touch tight but still to wear them

 

^^ oroy thanks, your point is valid and well taken. I have come to like the deep antique of EGs, but on shoes like Lobb Museum Parisian or Museum Chestnut, it is the mottled antiquing is too much for me.

I can see for some tastes the EG antiquing may be too heavy. It would be a more natural process to have them antique on their own time, I suppose you are right.

I am hooked on EG for good though:icon_smile_big:.

Edit: archduke missed your question: these are EG/Polo Mckay on 888. They took a while to break in, now are among my most comfortable pairs. Just stick it out and give it 3-4 months, and store with trees.They will suddenly one day become comfortable. This only happens on the 888 for me, my other EGs 202,606,82, 101 all are fine from the start.

Yes I do have my eye on a brown suede pair, as I own the black also and love them, and would like to have all 3. If the 888 last hurts your feet you could go with a MTM Asquith on the 606 for more comfort, and get a similar last shape.