Allen Edmonds (really... are they good shoes?)

[boushi_mania]

The shoes are good quality and properly made. The problem with the Internet is, if you do a little searching, you'll find enthusiasts on any subject who will critique the flaws in the thing they're interested in, however minor. The majority of criticisms of Allen-Edmonds come out of a certain Style-related Forum, where the members are accustomed to the best shoes money can buy. And in that company, there's certainly no way they can measure up. If anything, they're on the low end of properly-made men's dress shoes (above pretty much only Loake and Florsheim among the most well-known of English and American brands), but they're still respectable, and their customer service is second-to-none in the business.

There are two main criticisms about the company: one is about the quality, which is true to an extent, but also neglects the fact that the company is also trying to make its products relatively affordable while keeping production in the U.S. You can't have top-shelf leathers or all-handstitched uppers when you're aiming for the price point that they do. The shoes may seem expensive to those accustomed to the disposable glorified sneakers they pass off as dress wear these days, but the fact is that this is just the entry-level, which is good enough for most people who care enough about these things not to buy the aforementioned sneakers. They are also just as repairable as any other Goodyear-welted shoe, regardless of cost. One could point fingers at their quality control as well, but the company is good at making things right if you get in touch with them about any problems, undercutting the argument further.

The second criticism is about the style, which is more subjective. Certainly, the lasts are big and round, the broguing is bold and unsubtle, and the heels are kind of wide because they use a 360-degree welt instead of a three-quarter welt. This is certainly not in favor among a majority of iGents, but it also exudes a certain no-nonsense attitude to it, and at least the first two points have a very "mid-century U.S." aspect that hearkens back to a more prosperous, optimistic time. These qualities also work very well for some of the shoes they make, such as the MacNeil, which is the go-to replacement for the late U.S.-made Florsheim Imperial Kenmoor (in scotch grain, anyway; Alden probably edges them out for the shell cordovan version, though just barely).

So, take the criticisms with a grain of salt, and keep in mind that more than a little is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Fifty150]

For the price, it is a good shoe. You can spend a lot more money, and get what may be a better shoe. But there are very few faults that you will find with Allen Edmonds. Essentially, you will get a superior product when compared to the department store shoes that sell for less than half as much.

These shoes are for someone who will wear dress shoes on a regular basis. If you are a blue jeans & t-shirt kind of guy, you may not get your money's worth. Is it really worth $$$$ to own a pair of shoes that you will only wear for about 4 hours, on the average of 3 - 4 times a year? They won't even be broken in for the first few years. If you don't wear dress clothes on a regular basis, do you really need high end suits and shoes in your closet that you're not wearing?

I like Levi's 501 jeans and Pendleton shirts. My daily wear shoes are either Tony Lama, Dr. Martens, or issued Rocky jump boots. But I do wear suits often enough for court, field interviews, and executive protection details (like when The Queen comes to town). My main issues are comfort and a rubber sole that I can run in. Obviously, a slip on loafer won't do because it could slip off. And if at all possible, a boot is better because of the ankle support. Not too many people have to run, climb fences, or fight in dress shoes. Orthopedic Alden shoes are great. But too expensive to rip up when I am chasing and fighting a suspect resisting arrest. Allen Edmonds are the perfect price point for a better shoe, that I can wear at work.

 

[Fifty150]

free reconditioning

Not exactly free.

You can get them rebuilt & they will last you the rest of your life.

Not exactly a lifetime. Allen Edmonds will recraft a show 2 or 3 times. Then it is considered to be at the end of the useable life of the shoe.

be aware that they have a couple of different lasts

Allen Edmonds has more than just a couple of different lasts.

65 (5) Last: Allen Edmonds' infamous 5 last is their most popular and classic fitting last. It is the longest last they make, and it is quite narrow. Many users swear it's ideal for arched feet, and they suggest it for those with long and narrow feet. If you don't fall into this category, try going 1/2 size smaller and 1 size wider to accommodate your feet to the last.
Models: Cambridge, Cronmok, Fifth Avenue, Fifth Street, Heritage Golf, McAllister, McGregor, McTavish, Neumok, Park Avenue, Shreveport, Strand, Strandmok

73 (3) Last: Allen Edmonds' 73 last features a full fit measurement in the ball of the foot, a tapered toe, and it is roomy across the forefoot.
Models: Strand Golf, Walton

79 (9) Last: Allen Edmonds' 79 last features a tapered back portion that pushes the foot forward to fit low across the top of the foot rather than the instep. Users with narrow heels report that the shoes do not slip despite their foot being pushed forward.
Models: Cody, Randolph

97 (7) Last: Allen Edmonds' 97 last is universally recognized as the best fit for the average foot. It features a soft and slightly pointed toe that is still quite roomy. It lays flatter in the toe area. Some users find it a bit wide and size down 1 width.
Models: Grayson, MacNei, MacNeil 2.0

108 (8) Last: Allen Edmonds' 108 last features an elongated forefoot and a tapered and flatter toebox. It is similar to the 222 (2) last. Users report it being TTS in the forefoot, but quite roomy in the heel.
Models: Carlyle, Clark Street, Delray, LaSalle, Mora 2.0, Steen Vernon

201 Last: Allen Edmonds' 201 last features a higher cone, providing more room for those with a higher instep. The toe is quite roomy. The website states that this last features a chiseled toe, however many users don't agree with this description.
Models: Bartlett, Jefferson 2.0, Hopkinson, First Avenue, Overlord, Rogue, Warwick

222 (2) Last: Allen Edmonds' 222 last features an elongated toe and a higher instep. Overall, this last fits narrow in the forefoot.
Models: Norwich

234 (4) Last: Allen Edmonds' 234 is modeled after the 97 last for the best fit for the average foot, but with a less pronounced point and a subtly squared-off toe. Along with the 678, it’s considered one of the widest and roomiest lasts Allen Edmonds makes. Some people believe it runs a little long.
Models: Addison

333 Last: Allen Edmonds’ 333 last features a slightly elongated profile and softer line at the outer edge, with a square shape and chiseled toe. Users describe it as a bit wide. It's slightly long in the toebox, and longer overall (though some is ornamental length). It's longer and a bit wider than the 65, though it tapers more sharply from the widest point at the ball of the foot. This makes for a longer and more sculpted toe. It also has less volume above the foot than the 65 or 201 lasts. It usually fits true to size.
Models: Flatiron, Franciscan, Larchmont, University

444 Last: Currently, the only model Allen Edmond offers in the 444 last is the ORD Bycicle, which is a shoe specifically designed for frequent flyers; the last features a roomier fit especially in the toe box.
Models: ORD Bycicle

511 (1) Last: Allen Edmonds’ 555 last is similar to the 7 last from heel to the ball of the foot, but it features a more rounded, fuller fitting toe. It’s a popular last for boots because of the extra room in the toe box. However, users with wide feet suggest choosing the 201 last (more roomy, especially in the instep) over the 511, or sizing up half a size in the 511 last.
Models: Long Branch, Bellevue, Bradley, Dalton, Shelton, Dundee & Dundee 2.0, Leeds & Leeds 2.0, Weybridge Golf, Wilbert.

511G (1) Last: technically speaking, Allen Edmonds’ 511G last is roomier that the 511, as it is cut that way to accommodate an insole. However, once you do add the insole, it does become narrower than the traditional 511. It features a rounded toe for comfortable all-day wear and easy pairing with heavier and casual athletic socks.
Models: ATL, LAX, LGE, MKE, Double Eagle Golf, First Cut Golf, Haskell Golf, Redan Golf, Voyager

606 Last: Allen Edmonds’ 606 last features a broad, flat toe providing a wide forefoot. The instep transition and cone rise is farther back than a typical Allen Edmonds last. Some users find the heel extra tight. It fits true to size.
Models: Ascher, Patriot

678 Last: Allen Edmonds’ 678 last is the 234 last, built with a fuller fit and additional depth to accommodate an orthotic insole. Users find it a bit tight in the forefoot compared to other lasts, but removing the insole produces a relatively roomy fit for the size.
Models: Ashton, Benton

1757 Last: Allen Edmonds’ 1757 last features a rather wide forepart compared to the 65 last. The toe down view has a rounded profile for a fuller shape similar to the B34. It’s the ideal last for those looking for comfort in the toe and forefoot areas. It seems to be a bridge between the B34 and 201 last.
Models: Boone

1943 Last: Allen Edmonds’ 1943 last is a derivative of the 333 last. It retains the heel of the 333, and it adjusts it by widening at the ball of the foot and reducing the toe length.
Models: Yorktown, Cornwallis, Leiden, Leiden Weave

2042 Last: Allen Edmonds’ 2042 last is sleeker than the 606 slip-on last; it features a full forepart and tapered back section. Some people find it roomy but with a quite tight heel.
Models: Acheson, Lake Bluff, Lake Forest

B34 Last: Allen Edmonds’ B34 last is a typical 'boot' last. It features a wider forefoot for more room up front and a higher toe box for added volume and comfort from a profile perspective.
Models: Normandy, Odenwald, Sturgis

JN9 Last: Allen Edmond’s JN9 was created for golf shoes. The last has a modern, squarer toe and broader toe box to allow for the use of an orthotic.
Models: Muirfield Village

114 Last: Allen Edmonds’ 114 last features a semi-round toe and a slightly shorter vamp; the last is fuller across the ball of the foot. It is the most standard last Allen Edmonds uses as well as the most true to size, as it has no elongation and width is as expected.
Models: Cavanaugh, Lowry Hill, Maxfield, Nashua

145 Last: Allen Edmonds’ 114 last features a slightly square toe with an elongated forepart; it is generally employed for driving shoes.
Models: Boulder, Eldorado

555 Last: Allen Edmonds’ 555 last features a shorter forepart, a round toe with a tighter instep, and a low vamp, providing a snug fit. This last provides a good fit for those with a high instep and arch.
Models: Sanibel 2.0, Northland, Hagerstown, Bates, Bar Harbor, Maritime, Kirkwood, Sandman

800 Last: Allen Edmonds’ 800 last features a sleek and rounded toe and a steep arch; this last is roomier across the ball of the foot, and it has a rounded shape. Despite being roomy, it’s not considered a “wide” last.
Models: Kenwood, Sanibel

2592 Last: Allen Edmond’s 2592 last features a round and full toe. It is 1/8 inch longer than the 114 last to accommodate a fuller, foam sock liner and heel-to-toe padding.
Models: Center Fielder, Haley, Eastport, Interstate 90, Ventura Hwy

Will they last a lifetime?...well it depends on lots of factors.

They don't work out too well when riding a motorcycle.

Florsheim

One of the better, cheap shoes.

 

[Fifty150]

Are they good shoes? Here is my most recent acquisition.

The shoe felt good. The shoe looked good. Just a little flaw. As the guy at the store said, "they're handmade".

The guy at the sanding machine got a little carried away. Sanded down the welt to the stitches and broke the stitches.

Two people fell asleep at the wheel. The person at the belt sander. And the person who was supposed to be doing quality control inspections.

 

[So33]

Thanks for all the replies everyone. I went to the store today and ordered two different pairs. I can't belive how well they felt when I put them on my feet.
I ordered the Kiowa and the Strand in walnut.
No I just have to wain until they arrive

Report back with pictures. I think they are great value shoes at their price point. Mine are made in USA to-boot, as I recall?

 

[Fifty150]

made in USA

In today's world, "Made In The USA" has many definitions. We do know that nothing can be entirely made in The USA. The parts are usually imported. Not every piece of leather on every shoe is Horween. Some of that leather could be imported. I have no idea where the thread comes from. The glue could be sourced from ????? Vibram is an Italian company with US factories and distribution. Dainite is an English company. Some of the shoes have soles which only have an Allen Edmonds logo, and those are most likely imported.

Made in the USA could simply mean "final assembly". Look at the automotive world. Major components of a car are actually made in other countries, then shipped to US factories, where they are assembled. Imagine if you sew all the pieces of a shoe together in another country, then ship it to the USA. Workers in an American factory then complete the final assembly by attaching the soles.

 

[Fifty150]

The factory second is actually in better condition than the retail quality boot. At least in my case, I got lucky.

The welts weren't perfectly lined up. The sewing machine may have hiccuped. But the sole is attached and solid. No fear of it coming off. When it goes in for a resole, it will get another welt.

It looks like someone did a lousy job adding a little color to the toe to simulate patina. In the photos on the website, there is no "fake patina" on the toe. That doesn't matter to me. The first thing that I did out of the box, which I do with all of my shoes, is clean them, oil them, and condition them. With wear, the shoe will develop its own patina.

It shipped in a brown box. No fancy blue box with cheap shoe bags and a brochure. Which is fine by me, since all of that stuff gets thrown away. For some people, the shoe box and all of the advertising is exciting. To me, it's just garbage.


The soles are stamped "F2" to indicate a factory second.


It is a "dress boot", not a work boot. The toe cap is not real. It's not an extra layer of leather sewn over the toes. It's actually 2 pieces of leather, the toe and the vamp, joined together to create the illusion of a cap toe. Which is fine since any competent cobbler will be able to replace the toe piece of leather as needed, if you're somehow wearing out the toe.

Your mileage may vary.

​

 

[Fifty150]

I oiled the shoes and wore them to the bar. Now they are ready for more trips to the bar. Not much I can do about the little flaw where the tongue gusset attached to the vamp on the right shoe. The crooked stitch on the left tongue attachment is hidden by the laces. The color was darkened and blended with the oil.

 

[Fifty150]

Here it is in daylight, in it's natural habitat. On concrete. City streets.

 

[Fifty150]

The time came to replace my old Dr. Martens. I am a creature of habit. I was just going to buy another pair. But instead, I bought these. Similar style. Soft lug soles feel good on the pavement. Pricing was close enough. Allegedly, these are built better. The Dr. Martens lasted for several decades. I hope that these boots will last until I die.

 

[Fifty150]

And because I am an idiot, who can't resist a bargain, I bought another pair.

 

[Fifty150]

And in the light of day........

 

[Edward]

I oiled the shoes and wore them to the bar. Now they are ready for more trips to the bar. Not much I can do about the little flaw where the tongue gusset attached to the vamp on the right shoe. The crooked stitch on the left tongue attachment is hidden by the laces. The color was darkened and blended with the oil.



View attachment 553252 View attachment 553253

I see in this close-up photo the crooked line of the stitching. I imagine noone else will ever spot it unless you similarly point it out to them. I'm all for getting bargain on a 'second' where there's this sort of 'flaw' that is cosmetic only.

Just last week I needed a new pair of shoes for semi-formal work-related wear. (I've been wearing penny loafers almost exclusively the last couple of years, but am going to some important work events in a new, forties- cut suit, and the loafers just look all wrong with that.) Picked up a pair of Sanders & Sanders shoes on eBay as seconds for about half retail price. They're stamped 'second' in red on the inside of both shoes, but in all honesty I'm still trying to find the flaw. It's probably something similar to the wavy stitching line on yours - though black thread on black shoes... Looking forward to wearing them in anger. Enjoy your boots too!

 

[jdbenson]

I follow a youtuber, Rose Anvil, who regularly reviews boots and he does not have a lot to say in favor of them. Granted this is only one pair of boots, but his take is that they are overpriced based on the lower quality of the materials.

 

[Fifty150]

a youtuber, Rose Anvil,

Weston Kay is entertaining.

Just pay attention to what is really going on. He could sing the praises of shoes which he makes money on. Synthetic parts such as foam and rubber could be garbage on one shoe, and built for comfort and cost savings on another shoe. Remember that on some shoes he is a collaborator, and on other shoes he gets a commission for sales.

It's in his best interest to present with bias. Even more entertaining when he puts a shoe on a belt sander to prove that it's inferior. How many shoes in normal use, go on a belt sander? Certainly not while the shoes are on my feet. Not one person I know sticks his feet on a sander, ever, during the course of the day.

 

[Fifty150]

Another pair with bad leather, damaged welts and broken stitches.

Keep it and wear it until it falls apart? Or send it back?

 

[One Drop]

Weston Kay is entertaining.

View attachment 556090

Just pay attention to what is really going on. He could sing the praises of shoes which he makes money on. Synthetic parts such as foam and rubber could be garbage on one shoe, and built for comfort and cost savings on another shoe. Remember that on some shoes he is a collaborator, and on other shoes he gets a commission for sales.


View attachment 556091


It's in his best interest to present with bias. Even more entertaining when he puts a shoe on a belt sander to prove that it's inferior. How many shoes in normal use, go on a belt sander? Certainly not while the shoes are on my feet. Not one person I know sticks his feet on a sander, ever, during the course of the day.

He is pretty transparent and gets it wrong at times. But for the most part he is correct and has become a force for good, educating consumers in an attempt at encouraging companies to maintain quality and think twice before cost cutting at the expense of quality.

I'm a big fan of Alden but their price increases combined with some dubious corner cutting is a reality, and I'm glad to see them called out for their transgressions.

He is 100% correct concerning AE these days, they no longer represent good value at their price point, they've screwed the pooch, and more's the pity. Inevitable after multiple ownership changes between various venture capitalist firms and current ownership by a brand that is not known of its quality offerings or CS.

This is a fair and unsensational article about the history and decline of a once great American brand:

https://brillare.ca/blogs/blog/what-happened-to-allen-edmonds-the-decline-of-an-american-icon

 

[Fifty150]

dubious corner cutting

Unfortunately, some of those cost cutting measures are across the board. Many brands are doing it. Some of those cost savings are not so good. Some are debatable.

A lot of higher priced shoes are now using synthetic shoe lasting boards to replace leather insoles. Not a good thing. They offer no advantage to the person wearing the shoes. The manufacturer saves a lot of money. They wear down and break apart. A cobbler replace it at a very high cost. A manufacturer could replace it when they recraft the shoe at a very high cost. I would elect to have a cobbler replace it with leather.

The most common item used is bonded leather. The heels on Tony Lama, Wolverine 1000 Mile, Allen Edmonds, and Alden all use it. Every youtube.com cobbler complains about "cardboard" heel stacks. According to my cobbler, when you take those apart, they break and you can't reuse them. Whereas the cobblers like to save time and money by reusing leather heel stacks. As a consumer, it has not affected me at all. I've never personally experienced, nor heard of, a heel failure from the cardboard. The heel getting soaked, saturated, and falling apart because the cardboard melted? I've never seen nor heard of it. It's sturdy and robust like MDF, which is sawdust and glue. My problem, is in the back of my mind, I paid $600 for a shoe with cardboard.

What will affect you and I as consumers is when they use lesser quality parts in construction. Lower grade thread, eyelets, hooks, glue, and such. I had a pair of boots where the stitch holding the heel to the vamp broke. I've had boots where the sole separated from the shoe because of the cheap glue. I've had speed lace hooks pop off. I had a pair of shoes where the entire rubber sole disintegrated and crumbled off the shoe.




My complaint is with lower cost shoes that cost more to rebuild than the shoe is worth. Dr. Marten. Timberland. Clarks. When a cobbler takes the shoe apart, and reassembles it...... I could buy another pair for less than what the cobbler charges. And because cobblers cannot replicate the original construction or use any original parts, the shoes are no longer the same. No cobbler has the hot knife to melt the sole onto Dr. Martens. No cobbler has an injection mold machine to restore Timberlands.


My biggest pet peeve is the use of a fake welt trim to make cemented shoes look like they have a Goodyear welt. And a lot of shoes do that. Mostly lower cost shoes. Which in reality, is what most people buy. Not everyone has $600 for a pair of shoes. Or even $300 for a pair of shoes. Most people buy shoes which are less than $200. I want to spend less than $100.

Now you have really got to consider what your expectations are when you spend $500+ on a pair of shoes. Is it acceptable for $500 shoes to use the same cheap parts as $100 shoes?

 

[Quest]

He is pretty transparent and gets it wrong at times. But for the most part he is correct and has become a force for good, educating consumers in an attempt at encouraging companies to maintain quality and think twice before cost cutting at the expense of quality.

I'm a big fan of Alden but their price increases combined with some dubious corner cutting is a reality, and I'm glad to see them called out for their transgressions.

He is 100% correct concerning AE these days, they no longer represent good value at their price point, they've screwed the pooch, and more's the pity. Inevitable after multiple ownership changes between various venture capitalist firms and current ownership by a brand that is not known of its quality offerings or CS.

This is a fair and unsensational article about the history and decline of a once great American brand:

https://brillare.ca/blogs/blog/what-happened-to-allen-edmonds-the-decline-of-an-american-icon

The article isn't "unsensational", its just dull. Says "quality went down". Ok? Do they have a comparison, or a list of customer complaints? Pretty basic blog post, doesn't present anything interesting or newfound. They really don't go that deep into the history, or what exactly is declining. An AI could write those generic sentences.

I know rose anvil cut some boots in half and was unimpressed with some of the construction, but he was of course looking at it from a work boot / shoe perspective and of course at the retail price. And they probably didn't pay him. Wood shank for example, has much more to do with a dress shoe and mostly walking use case than a workwear boot. Much more reasonable at $300 than $500 in their yearly sale.

Gentleman's Gazette cut through multiple AE shoes from various decades. Found the construction techniques to be mostly the same. Wood shanks in the recent shoes, no shank in any earlier boot. Rose Anvil didn't exactly do his research in the sense that it isn't "cheaper", would be put better as "the boots are build similar to their shoes - for comfort and daily wear vs work". Materials are probably thinner over the years, but if you buy at the yearly discount ~$300 for a boot and compare it to say, Thursday at $200, its pretty reasonable.

On mine, biggest negative would be they are easy to scuff. Nothing polish won't correct over time. But definitely not a work boot. I wear them into the office.

 

[One Drop]

The article isn't "unsensational", its just dull. Says "quality went down". Ok? Do they have a comparison, or a list of customer complaints? Pretty basic blog post, doesn't present anything interesting or newfound. They really don't go that deep into the history, or what exactly is declining. An AI could write those generic sentences.

I know rose anvil cut some boots in half and was unimpressed with some of the construction, but he was of course looking at it from a work boot / shoe perspective and of course at the retail price. And they probably didn't pay him. Wood shank for example, has much more to do with a dress shoe and mostly walking use case than a workwear boot. Much more reasonable at $300 than $500 in their yearly sale.

Gentleman's Gazette cut through multiple AE shoes from various decades. Found the construction techniques to be mostly the same. Wood shanks in the recent shoes, no shank in any earlier boot. Rose Anvil didn't exactly do his research in the sense that it isn't "cheaper", would be put better as "the boots are build similar to their shoes - for comfort and daily wear vs work". Materials are probably thinner over the years, but if you buy at the yearly discount ~$300 for a boot and compare it to say, Thursday at $200, its pretty reasonable.

On mine, biggest negative would be they are easy to scuff. Nothing polish won't correct over time. But definitely not a work boot. I wear them into the office.

Most of the reported problems, customer complaints, and reviews center are based on a decrease in QC, stitching and sole finish issues. This might just be a result of increased overall sales and an internet review snowball effect.

I'm in agreement that Rose Anvil often errs or had some questionable opinions when reviewing non-work style boots, he has little experience in dress boots and shoes.