Isshinryu101
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,328
- Location
- New Jersey
2nd nice pair i've seen you post here. Size?
looks like pretty standard pebble calf. nice tho.
That "Genuine..." could be referring to other aspects of the shoes as well. In the Vintage Times, buyers were more informed about WHY the good items were so good. Construction was even explained and SHOWN (thru deconstructed shoes) by many shoe brands. That "Genuine..." could be talking about construction.
Here's an interesting one. The shoe on the right is an 11.5 bespoke John Lobb of obvious modern vintage. The shoe on the left is a John Hanan from prior to 1935, also an 11.5. Pretty amazing
[/IMG]
excellent, of course. However, the lobb's toecap stitch is much tighter. So many minute details that determine "total" quality. There ARE some 1930's US-made shoes that rival the top modern Lobb bespokes, though. By the way, is that JL London or Paris?
PS: Modern shoe lovers should note the contrasting stitch which is a DEFINITIVE US Vintage shoe hallmark. The TOP makers of today know what historical details to reproduce.
Issh, the John Lobb is bespoke London--almost $5,000 US today. Plus, I like the last on the Brooklyn-made Hanan better. There should be a whole lot of extras for that kind of money--and I'm trying to sell the Lobb! Wonder why no one wanted me in their sales department??
Five grand..... The soles made of solid gold?
Just for the record...I did NOT pay $5,000 for these shoes. Crazy? Maybe, but not that crazy.
Bespoke is primarily about fit; that's where the money is; quality of construction and materials will vary by maker. Since asthetics is largely dictated by the style choice of the client and to a certain degree by the shape of their foot it would be useless to compare bespoke to RTW. Same applies to clothing......the John Lobb is bespoke London--almost $5,000 US today. Plus, I like the last on the Brooklyn-made Hanan better. There should be a whole lot of extras for that kind of money-