Since the Alden chukkas won a Badger and Blade award, it would be amazing (and frankly a bit ridiculous) if they came second in this comparison since both shoes tested here were available at the time of the award. However, it's the journey not the destination that interests me. I've owned a pair of the AE shell chukkas for a while and bought them because AE makes a size that fits my wide feet perfectly and Alden doesn't. I also prefer the 3-hole lacing to the Alden's 2-hole style although it's easy to punch an extra lace hole. Keen to hear how they compare to the highly revered Aldens.
The Great Debate: Allen Edmonds vs Alden
- Thread starter Front Page Articles
- Start date
Since the Alden chukkas won a Badger and Blade award, it would be amazing (and frankly a bit ridiculous) if they came second in this comparison since both shoes tested here were available at the time of the award. However, it's the journey not the destination that interests me. I've owned a pair of the AE shell chukkas for a while and bought them because AE makes a size that fits my wide feet perfectly and Alden doesn't. I also prefer the 3-hole lacing to the Alden's 2-hole style although it's easy to punch an extra lace hole. Keen to hear how they compare to the highly revered Aldens.
The picture of the Alden's at this point is simply boring. Those damn things wear like IRON, with more than 700 miles on the odometer, they're really not showing wear.
And the comfort? And how about the wear and comfort of the AE's?
They're both great so the answer is you need to own both. In addition, in this budget range, add Loake and Berwick as well.
I wear Allen Edmonds shoes every day. I own 12 pair, both dress and casual.
It's now just a few days shy of 2 years since your starting review of Allen Edmonds vs Alden and I would like to read the next installment. I assume there must be at least 1 or 2 installments and am eager to read them. Where might I find them?
I probably have around 20 pair of Allen Edmonds shoes from ventilated ( woven leather mesh) partial uppers to dress shoes to dress boots( all lace up) and a couple of pair of heavier dress casual boots. Some are over 20 years old and still good. I generally wear a pair only once or twice a week when in season for that type.
I would have liked to try Aldens, but have not found a store close by that carries them, and do not want to try to order online as I have a very narrow foot and have trouble finding a good fit.
Allen Edmonds makes shoes on several different lasts and once you find the last that works for your foot, you can safely order online, just stick with that last and your size and I find it to work consistently over the years for a good fit.
I would have liked to try Aldens, but have not found a store close by that carries them, and do not want to try to order online as I have a very narrow foot and have trouble finding a good fit.
Allen Edmonds makes shoes on several different lasts and once you find the last that works for your foot, you can safely order online, just stick with that last and your size and I find it to work consistently over the years for a good fit.
With all due respect, it's Johnston & Murphy. Yes, they moved production of their less expensive models to Mexico and then to india, and their cheapest to China. Their top models are made in the U.S. and Italy. But at every price level from top to bottom, they still provide a great product and great value.
Above J&M's level, I'd look at English-made shoes. But their prices can be pretty steep.
Above J&M's level, I'd look at English-made shoes. But their prices can be pretty steep.
Sorry but the price difference between Alden's and AE is enough for me to never consider and Alden shoe. A friend of mine wears Oak street and I just laugh when he buys a new pair, same when my boss buys Aldens. It's not that a pair of Aldens are out of my price range I just choose to feel good about getting a handmade shoe for half the price and no offense when my Edmonds wear out I buy new ones because new shoes are awesome and not to mention a ten year old shoe with new soles are still 10 yr old shoes.
Strangest article and thread on B&B. Over two years ago this dude tells us he's going to do a long term comparison of two pairs of shoes, then never follows up with a single picture or update aside from one fairly minimal update. These are cordovan shoes, man! How about some pics to see how the colors are changing at least? Anything! Why did you kick off this comparison if you had no intention of following through? I'm confused.
Alden costs as much as the English brands, or close to it. I can't see paying that for a shoe. I have a pair of Church's that I had fully refurbished by the shoemaker who services most Church's shoes that come in for repair in the Eastern US but I won't buy another.
Men's dress shoes go from $25 to $2,000 (with some ridiculous exceptions). Every man seems to select a price point where he's comfortable: a place where the price/value/personal choice meets the wallet.
That all makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense is that almost every man - no matter where he is on the price scale - thinks everyone buying cheaper shoes is under-informed, and everyone spending more is just crazy or foolish or both.
It makes sense to me that (assuming he has the money) every man purchase a shoe near the top of his ability to perceive the added value. If you don't see a difference between $150 shoes and $300 shoes definitely don't pay the difference. If you see and appreciate the difference then get the better shoes, but that doesn't make you better than the guy with the cheaper shoes. It just makes you someone who knows enough to appreciate the better shoes.
You might want to consider the possibility that someone else has a more refined appreciation that you do when you proclaim that your price point is the logical holy grail of shoe purchasing.
That all makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense is that almost every man - no matter where he is on the price scale - thinks everyone buying cheaper shoes is under-informed, and everyone spending more is just crazy or foolish or both.
It makes sense to me that (assuming he has the money) every man purchase a shoe near the top of his ability to perceive the added value. If you don't see a difference between $150 shoes and $300 shoes definitely don't pay the difference. If you see and appreciate the difference then get the better shoes, but that doesn't make you better than the guy with the cheaper shoes. It just makes you someone who knows enough to appreciate the better shoes.
You might want to consider the possibility that someone else has a more refined appreciation that you do when you proclaim that your price point is the logical holy grail of shoe purchasing.
I own several pairs of AE, a few Johnston and Murphy, Florsheim/the real ones and even a couple of Cole Haans and my wallet stops at AE. I have no intentions ever of paying $150 to recraft a 10 yr old shoe because, well it's a 10 yr old shoe. I'll hit the AE outlet store and pick up a brand new pair for $170 that because of an imaginary scuff or color change that was $395 before. To each his own but Aldens to me are grossly overpriced.
Last edited:
True enough. But it's not just about who has more refined taste. Price, durability and overall quality are not always perfectly correlated, much less fit and comfort. Due to global economic conditions, many items that require skilled hand craftsmanship that were once made in the US, Italy or England (I'm thinking of leather goods in particular from those countries but the same applies to many other consumer durables) are now made in many other countries. Those still made in the US, Italy or England now often command luxury prices when they could be had at non-luxury prices in my father's or grandfather's day. Those now made in other countries around the world and sold at lower prices are sometimes equally high quality and sometimes cheap junk. You can't generalize, much less conclude those who pay more inevitably have more refined taste.
I would agree that "refined taste" was a poor descriptor of what I was going for - and I apologize for that.
In our grandfather's day there were quite a few more talented artisans than I observe today. I think it was harder to find cheap junk in the old days, when that kind of quality labor wasn't rewarded with high salaries.
I have not experienced equally high quality from other countries, and I think many here would appreciate a few examples. My experience is that Johnson & Murphy was a step above truly cheap shoes (although it seems the quality has slipped a bit on their lower lines). AE are better than the J&M, and Alden's are a step above AE. Every time I paid a bit more for the higher quality. But that doesn't mean someone isn't making a great shoe for cheap money - I just have not heard about them.
I do believe the law of diminishing returns virtually always applies to higher quality - considerably more money for a small gain in quality. It comes down to how much you appreciate the difference - or if you think it's worth the difference in price (assuming you can perceive the difference).
I purchased a diamond necklace for my wife (about 15-20 years ago, so I'm approximating the numbers). The salesperson A/B'd their cheapest stone (1/2 c.) and the next one up in quality. The $400 increase seemed exceedingly reasonable for the obvious difference in quality. OK - same procedure with the next two: $1,800 and $2,400. Again I was happy to pay the difference for the obvious jump in quality. But when we got to that one compared to the $2,800 stone I could see absolutely no difference. She told me to never pay for quality I can't see - which seems like great advice.
But here's what I don't do: I don't tell people that anyone who pays more than I did is silly, crazy or throwing their money away on something that isn't any better. It isn't any better TO ME. The lady at the store could see an obvious difference, which makes her more knowledgeable, or more experienced with the higher quality - but not more refined taste. That's unnecessarily pejorative.
But I think it's entirely reasonable for me to assert that level of quality is all I personally require.
I would agree with most of that, except for your suggestion their was less cheap junk in the old days. There was a lot more poverty in the old days (in the USA, that is), and so less of all goods, cheap and expensive, but a great deal of cheap junk. True, the cheap junk then was not the same as today's cheap junk. What is made of plastic today may have been of tin or even cardboard back then.
Handmade shoes, or nearly anything else highly labor intensive to produce, regardless of quality, is now much less expensive to manufacture abroad. Are you a musician? More and more musical instruments are now made in China, first just the "cheap junk" ones, but now more and more high quality ones. Fine bespoke suits were famously made first in London, then Hong Kong, but finally all over the globe. True, to command the higher prices of Alden shoes made in the US, or the even more expensive shoes made in England, the quality most be kept very high. But the cost advantage of manufacturing in other countries has and will continue to gradually eat away at their business, as the overseas makers move upscale. If the trend continues, only a few ultra-high end custom makers will remain in the US and England. What keeps the high-end US operations of Alden, or even Allen Edmonds, from disappearing more quickly is at least in part brand recognition and not entirely intrinsic quality. So while it's wrong for anyone to snigger at someone willing to pay the premium for John Lobb or Crockett & Jones, never mind Alden, it's just basic economics that generally speaking the value in such brands will gradually erode.
I remember when Yamaha first came on the scene and they made quality instruments for a lower price than the "name brands." But they followed the usual pattern: make a quality product and they will come, and then you will raise the price. My Yamaha trumpets have a list price of $5,000. Hyundai is another example: as their cars improved so did the price.
It's probably the lucky few who purchase the quality item just before the price increase.
It's probably the lucky few who purchase the quality item just before the price increase.
In 1962, my parents bought one of the earliest Yamaha pianos sold in NYC. I think Yamaha piano sales in the US began in 1960. The owner's manual was written in charmingly broken English, incomprehensible in parts. But it's a very good piano, of course. As you know, they are one of the world's leading instrument makers now, and manufacture in many countries. Their less expensive band instruments are mainly made in China. And your story regarding their trumpets is exactly the same as what occurred with their flutes. Today, cheap and mid-priced flutes are mainly made in China, Yamaha and a few other Japanese brands dominate the high-end market, except in the most expensive, highest-end custom made category.
I wouldn't put it past them. Electronic shoes that automatically adjust for irregularities in the pavement, of course.But has Yamaha started making shoes yet? That's what I'm waiting for
Similar threads
