1920s men's Art Deco shoes, 2 pairs

[Dinerman]

Listen to Isshinryu101. The styling's dead on, but the detailing's all wrong for a '20s shoe. As stated, the heels, soles, interior and markings are all consistent with a '60s shoe. They're very nice, and you'd never know they're not '20s-'30s when worn, but they are several decades newer.

And no, most shoes of the '60s-70s period would not be marked with leather content.

 

[Isshinryu101]

hmm well what do I say to Mr Florsheim senior - who suggested 1920's first, and the specialist UK auction house who valued them for me? Neither have even mentioned being unsure of the dating.

The inserted oval label also matches other 1920-30's womens shoes I have, and have seen. By the 1970's Material content laws would also require the shoes to have leather stated on them somewhere, either with the leather symbol or upper, lining and sole materials.

1) Mr. Florsheim Senior, with all due respect to his last name, obviously cannot correctly identify the shoes from a time period BEFORE Florsheims were outsourced to overseas manufacturers.

2) An auction house that specializes specifically in Vintage Footwear? From the 1920's? THAT'S specialization if I ever heard it. Especially since the interest in the market is quite small. Further, the only way to learn about True Vintage Shoes (1920's- 1950's) is thru HANDLING THE SHOES. Are they in a 1920's style? Most definitely. However, they are not the 1920's shoes. Many details are not from 1920's but directly from 1960's- 1970's.

Just one:

This is a 1930's Florsheim shoe heel stitch. This is the style used in the ORIGINAL 1920's version of the shoe. Same as what Florsheim did for all their shoes. If you look closely, you will see Marc's pairs are stitched like that. Why that stitch? Because the shoes were Hand-Made. For a machine-made shoe (like yours), Florsheim switched to a separate piece of leather to serve as heel counter. There are a bunch of other details like this.

I'm sorry if this is not what you want to hear, but they ARE very cool 1960's- 1970's reproductions of the 1920's shoe. I'm a big fan of all those Antique TV shoes where someone brings in an antique to be sold for them. The star of the show says, "it's a reproduction", and the seller says, "but an expert antiques dealer told me it was genuine". It sometimes stinks, but it's a fact of life. I saw the same pair on ebay. If they were the 1920's version, I would have won 'em.

 

[Isshinryu101]

And no, most shoes of the '60s-70s period would not be marked with leather content.

Dinerman hasn't read books that tell him how to ID certain details of Vintage Shoes. There really aren't any! He had to learn the old-fashioned way. The man has handled a ton of shoes from the Vintage Eras, all the way thru to modern. Learning thru experience. This is the problem with the internet. People (like your Mr. Florsheim & your UK auction house) look on the internet and go by what they see and read there, which represents maybe 1/10 of 1% of what's necessary to make an informed inference.

Your auction house probably Googled "1920's florsheim art deco shoes" and FOUND MARC'S PICS!!!! Yours look like them (minus the fine details), and that's all that's out there to go on. NOW, YOUR SHOES show up at the top of this search, so the NEXT person looking for True 1920's Florsheim Art Deco Shoes will believe that YOURS are what they should go on to make an ID. Interesting how the internet leads to a LOT of mis-information.

 

[Isshinryu101]

One side note, I am not trying to be a jerk. I'm not trying to say anything negative at all about your shoes or your purchase. HOWEVER, this is the Fedora Lounge. There are many here that want to learn the CORRECT info about Vintage styles and clothing items/ accessories. The standard here has been set quite high, as there are some very knowlegable & experienced people here. Marc Chevalier is one of those people, and he started this thread to show the readers here what True 1920's Florsheim Art Deco shoes look like. When someone posts reproductions, that is fine, and actually adds to the thread, I believe. It is just important to point out that fact.

 

[sproily]

I agree with Isshi and Dinerman. I haven't handled a lot of American vintage items but I can pretty much date an item based on pictures. It's all in the details: seams, leather type (also how it ages, creases), if not shoes, the type of material, how it's woven... I always date items by their materials, only after that I start to look at the styling.

 

[Isshinryu101]

I always date items by their materials, only after that I start to look at the styling.

Good technique, Sproilly. Cookie has such a good eye, and he can tell a ton just by looking at the vamp. I look at other things first. All good techniques, and all birthed thru the individual's hands-on experiences.

 

[Dinerman]

I am taking your responses on board, my question was not sarcastic, but literal, do I tell Florsheim's and Kerry Taylor that they are both wrong?

Yes, but understandably so. The overall style screams '20s, and as they are a reissue of an older Florsheim design, they can be matched "conclusively" to the earlier style; to other examples of it (like the ones earlier in the thread) or to company documents. The details that give them away as otherwise are subtle and in the light of all the other evidence, could easily be overlooked.

 

[Rudie]

What are those subtle details, apart from the rear seam?

 

[Dinerman]

Sole, heel, lining, construction, size code style.

 

[Isshinryu101]

Sole, heel, lining, construction, size code style.

give that man a cigar!

By the way, I had 2 consecutive nights of business negotiations last week. First night wore those Tan McHales, second night wore those Black Hartt caps. Got compliments BOTH times.

Thanks again!

 

[Rudie]

For a shnewbie like me those pointers are totally not helpful. I have no 1920s pair to compare them.

 

[Benny Holiday]

This is the level of knowledge that makes the FL the place to learn about vintage details in clothing and accesories. Marc would be proud gents. Very instructive and helpful to newbies and more experienced aficionados alike. :eusa_clap

 

[Isshinryu101]

For a shnewbie like me those pointers are totally not helpful. I have no 1920s pair to compare them.

It ain't "Dentist In a Box", my friend. Now go out, buy 100 pairs of Vintage shoes and play with 'em. Seriously, this is the only real way to learn.

 

[Isshinryu101]

This is the level of knowledge that makes the FL the place to learn about vintage details in clothing and accesories. Marc would be proud gents. Very instructive and helpful to newbies and more experienced aficionados alike. :eusa_clap

Many thanks. Nice people and fun site!

 

[Rudie]

It ain't "Dentist In a Box", my friend. Now go out, buy 100 pairs of Vintage shoes and play with 'em. Seriously, this is the only real way to learn.

Don't you think this advice is pretty useless? How should I buy 100 pairs of vintage shoes if I can't tell them apart from modern ones? I wonder why it should be impossible to explain the subtle details that show if shoes are 20s or 70s. If you can see the difference on a picture I don't understand why it can't be explained to others who haven't handled hundreds of vintage shoes. Unless you don't want to explain, for whatever reasons. It works pretty well in other areas of the forum that more knowledgeable members point out to others why a jacket is 60s does 30s or German and not British.

Benny, I disagree. Just throwing in a few cues might help to show off one's superior knowledge, but it's neither instructive nor helpful to newbies.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Rudie, you're right. But I guess what people are getting at (or should be) is that the info is here on the forum. Those chaps and chapettes who have seen and handled hundreds of pairs of era shoes have put their knowledge out there. But as with other forums and boards/internet places, there is no good place where that info is collected and easily readable. I think someone here - one of those very knowledgeable about vintage shoes - could start a thread pointing out exactly why these shoes have rightly been pegged as "outside the era". Personally the photo below was the one that finally convinced me (I was pretty skeptical to begin with, just because of the materials used and the side profile), but I don't have the shoe terminology to explain myself. It just doesn't look like a golden era shoe sole/heel.

 

[Dinerman]

Rudie, you're right. But I guess what people are getting at (or should be) is that the info is here on the forum. Those chaps and chapettes who have seen and handled hundreds of pairs of era shoes have put their knowledge out there. But as with other forums and boards/internet places, there is no good place where that info is collected and easily readable. I think someone here - one of those very knowledgeable about vintage shoes - could start a thread pointing out exactly why these shoes have rightly been pegged as "outside the era". Personally the photo below was the one that finally convinced me (I was pretty skeptical to begin with, just because of the materials used and the side profile), but I don't have the shoe terminology to explain myself. It just doesn't look like a golden era shoe sole/heel.

As a point of reference, some '60s-'70s Florsheims (in a very '60s-'70s style). Florsheim did use that heel pattern for several decades.

 

[Two Types]

Rudie, you're right. But I guess what people are getting at (or should be) is that the info is here on the forum. Those chaps and chapettes who have seen and handled hundreds of pairs of era shoes have put their knowledge out there. But as with other forums and boards/internet places, there is no good place where that info is collected and easily readable. I think someone here - one of those very knowledgeable about vintage shoes - could start a thread pointing out exactly why these shoes have rightly been pegged as "outside the era".

I agree on that point. An example that comes immediately to mind (and because it is my particular area of interest) can be found in the 'Tootal' thread, where we have tried to establish a simple guide on how to date a Tootal tie from its label. Prior to reading the information in that thread many among us had no idea whether a Tootal 'Green Quality' tie was from the 30s or the 50s. I know that isn't as complicated as the entire history of shoes in the 20th century, but you get my point.

Part of the problem with all forums of this nature is that, whilst the acknowledged experts have certainly posted vast amounts of highly informative background, one also stumbles across inaccurate and contradictory information. I recall the case of one highly respected former lounger, whose knowledge of vintage clothing was incredible, stating that there were no particular differences between British and continental vintage suits. As we know from the various threads (on British, German, Italian suits etc), this is nonsense. There are plenty of loungers whose knowledge undermines this claim.

And don't get me started on the misinformation (one might even say mythology) that has been posted about Oxford Bags ...

I suppose what I am saying is that, whilst there is no substitute for hard work, knowledge is best when it is shared with an appreciative audience which is willing to learn.

 

[Isshinryu101]

Don't you think this advice is pretty useless? How should I buy 100 pairs of vintage shoes if I can't tell them apart from modern ones? I wonder why it should be impossible to explain the subtle details that show if shoes are 20s or 70s. If you can see the difference on a picture I don't understand why it can't be explained to others who haven't handled hundreds of vintage shoes. Unless you don't want to explain, for whatever reasons. It works pretty well in other areas of the forum that more knowledgeable members point out to others why a jacket is 60s does 30s or German and not British.

Benny, I disagree. Just throwing in a few cues might help to show off one's superior knowledge, but it's neither instructive nor helpful to newbies.

what the heck do you expect? I just jumped in and started buying to see what's out there. That's it. No magic formula or "This is how it's done" manual. YOU have to put in the work, then others who know will help you fill in the blanks, or answer good questions. If you want a "Vintage Manual", that isn't going to happen (most likely).

 

[Baron Kurtz]

But you get the point, right? It's like someone asking me what tells me a jacket is from the 60s rather than the 40s, or from 1930s Germany rather than England, and replying:

lapels
buttons
lining
pockets
cut

- not very helpful. And if not being very helpful, what's the point of posting the reply? (not your reply, of course, but it's the one that's caused the minor ruckus)

Rudie's point is actually central to the thread as it has developed recently. Someone who doesn't know, but thought they'd stumbled on a pot of gold. At the beginning of any learning, you must take the word of the person telling you something. It helps to have very good vintage stores, say somewhere in the unpicked midwest of the USA, with knowledgeable staff to teach you. But most won't have that, or the money to blow on expensive mistakes.

Are we saying that they should stay in the dark? Why then have a discussion forum at all? Just for a show and tell without the tell, pictures but no discussion? If you're not using your knowledge for active teaching of newcomers, that knowledge is rendered pointless.

bk

p.s. I agree that there is no substitute to owning and handling acknowledged pieces from the era. But most people, for geographical or financial reasons, do not have that opportunity.