Church's decline

[EGAF]

I understand that members have typically experienced a decline in the quality of Church's shoes. As I have size 14 feet (and hence limited options outside of bespoke) and the C&J shoes do not fit me well, I am inclined to look at the Church's again. In what manner has their quality declined?

[Connemara]

I believe they use only grain-corrected leather with their current shoes. This is inferior to leathers used by, say, Edward Green or C&J.

[MildlyConsumptiv]

grain corrected= plasticky

[redtree00]

I would spend the extra few hundred dollars and puchase Edward Green.
Edward Green will make shoes up to size 17.

[manicturncoat]

They have certainly corrected the prices!

[Incroyable]

Their quality declined when they were purchased by Prada.

[EGAF]

Thank you all for your helpful comments. An EG special order may be the way to go.

[Arpey]

Gentlemen, allow me to be the contrarian. I was and still am a large fan of Church’s English Shoes and have bought quite a few pairs in the last couple of years.

Re: understand that members have typically experienced a decline in the quality of Church's shoes.
I do not feel that their quality has declined but has remained constant. They may have introduced more Continental styles during the Prada years but in my opinion their quality is equivalent to the best of the English RTW shoemakers. Furthermore, I find them to be very comfortable and much more comfortable than my Edward Greens.

Re: I believe they use only grain-corrected leather with their current shoes. This is inferior to leathers used by, say, Edward Green or C&J.
No. They do use a corrected grain called Bookbinder but they do not use only corrected grains. By the way, other English shoe makers use corrected grains as well. C&J call theirs Calvary. John Lobb & Edward Green have offered corrected grain shoes in the past.

Re: grain corrected= plasticky
Yes, with cheaper shoes they can appear plassticky. But not all corrected grain is the same as the ultimate product is dependent on the quality of the leather. There are some mighty fine shoes out there made with corrected grain but they start with high quality full thickness hides to begin with.
I have one pair of Bookbinders in black. It has a high shine and looks particularly elegant with dark evening lounge suit or in place of patent leathers with a dinner jacket. It is a hardy shoe and has stood the test of time. For its purpose, it cannot be beat.

Re: Their quality declined when they were purchased by Prada
I disagree. Their production quality has remained constant.
Church's front office affairs declined following the trouble of Edward Weslock , their USA president, which in part caused them to be sold to Prada. With Prada selling its stake, they still remain quirky which at time can be frustrating but their shoes remain high quality. For an interesting piece please see the cached article at: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:L2C ... en|lang_fr

By the way, Edward Green, a shoe that I own but am not enthralled with, has also had its share of financial difficulties. It is undergoing additional changes at present. Some may say that this history has affected the firm’s consistency in quality as well. A article from the Robb report is interesting: http://robbreport.com/Articles/Style/Ac ... -Marks.asp

[tortured-sole]

Well said!

It is one of the most boring and incorrect cliches that constantly finds it way on this and similar forums that Churchs shoes are somehow inferior, poorly made and use poor quality materials.

I have many pairs of Churchs, post and pre Prada, and I am delighted with them. Some of the nonsense posted about them, for example that they only use corrected grain leather is almost laughable in its ignorance and naivity. I accept that at full retail price they are overpriced, but they are damn good shoes, and when they are compared with Lobb and Green I would point out they cost only an fraction of that price, and many of them are themselves overated. Try looking at some of the ghastly things Lobb produce.

Like Hermes ties and cordovan shoes, awful, yet we are all supposed to wet ourselves over them.

[JLibourel]

Interesting, about Church's. In most of the fora there has been such a seeming unanimiity about the decline of Church's post-Prada, that I think some of us took it as gospel. Nice to get a dissenting view.

I've had a few correspondents tell me that they don't think Edward Greens are nearly as deserving of the slavish adulation they receive on these fora. One LL member for whose opinions I have high respect has told me he considers them no better made than Allen-Edmonds--more elegantly styled but certainly not worth the high prices. Another chap (not an LL member, I think) had a somewhat similar reaction after getting his first pair of EGs. The few EGs I have seen have not made me particularly rueful that I "frittered" my money (as somebody accused me in another forum) on A-Es rather that buying four or five pairs of EGs.

[TVD]

It is about fifteen years since I last bought a pair of Church's, and my youngest Edward Grreen's are probably over ten years old. There were numerous experiments thereafter, but today I will either have my shoes made, or if RTW is required opt for John Lobb Paris Prestige Line.

Back then, Church had grain corrected, linen lined Custom Grade as volume line, and better, leather lined Bookbinder (if I recall correctly) as top of the range. The latter were acceptable, about on a par with Crockett & Jones and Edward Green (of that period). The Custom Grade obviously was a much more economically made shoe than an Edward Green. What happened to Church since, I never had any desire to find out because the designs they have in their shop window do not attract me at all. Especially their tans remind me of acute indigestion.

Tony Gaziano, who is a member of the London Lounge is far better placed than anybody else to report on the minutiae of Edward Green's history. In terms of quality, their leather is good and their lasts are elegant. They offer a wide range of styles and colours. The combination of all this has a great appeal. Neither Church nor the majority of Northampton bootmakers can offer anything similar.

Edward Green's bespoke offer is a great temptation, too. I have not had the opportunity (i.e. cash) to try them, but Tony's samples in their Burlington Arcade shop look incredible.

John Lobb Paris entered into manufacturing in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I believe they owned Edward Green at one stage and retain their old factory. Some of their styles are fashion forward. Most of their normal range does not appeal to me, and is overpriced. BUT, and this is a big but, the Prestige range is the sole mass manufacturer to offer bespoke grade leathers. They are finer, lighter and take a shine more easily. Their fake bevelled waste appeals to me too, although it is not the real thing. Having said all this, the styles available are limited, they are frequently out of stock (even in the flagship stores!), there is no manufacturing flexibility ("do this shoe on that last"). I love the 8000 last, but the only shoe on it using the Prestige construction was the Limited Edition 2004. They never managed to have a black one in my size. What more shall I say. Oh yes, the pricing is completely ridiculous. Last time I looked the Jermyn II were GBP 770. I think the shoe trees are another GBP 50. Still, in RTW, they are the only shoes I would consider because of the leather.

There are a number of other worthy contenders I have no experience with (yet). Albaladejo / Carmina produces beautiful shoes. The range in their Paris shop is impressive. But when I tried them on, they did not fit. This is entirely personal, and a shame, but my feet and their last do not get on.

Another name on my list is Dimitri Gomez in Paris. Michael Alden reported on him some time ago. He is a bespoke shoemaker who offers handmade (and this MEANS bespoke grade) shoes on stock lasts. When I popped into his premises at the back of Crocket & Jones in Paris, the shoes he showed me were very impressive. They are light, elegant, with hand stitched soles and bevelled waists as good as any bespoke shoe. But they are about half the price, and not much more than JL Paris Prestige Line. My next trip to Paris will be more expensive than I wish.

There are a couple more small manufacturers. For example St Crispin produce elegant, handmade shoes in Romania. Very beautiful, but difficult to get hold of. If I ever come across anything in my size, I shall pounce.

Thinking back over my shoe education, I can see myself at the stage where I thought well of Church. I do not know whether it is due to what happened to them, or due my increased knowledge, but today I would not chose them. There is better value elsewhere, and for ultimate quality there are also better alternatives.

[bengal-stripe]

I believe Church’s greatest mistake was to change from last 73 (their default last for many years) to last 100. The 100 with its bulbous toe box, is incredibly ugly.

If you want a solid no-nonsense shoe, go for Trickers. They are definitely better made than Church’s (narrower welts, channelled soles) and retail at about 1/3 below Church’s prices.

Rolf

[tortured-sole]

Trickers shoes are certainly well made, but I find their last shape and general design rather clumsy. I suppose that given the nature of the design, namely country style, that is the point, but I would rather have the Church Chetwynd for example.


If any members are after a heavy duty country style shoe, Crockett & Jones produce the Alt Wein line for the European market, and I am very happy with my double soled captoe brogues from them. They are sufficiently "country" enough without looking like the sort of thing handicapped kids got issued when I was at school.

[SouthPender]

By the way, Edward Green, a shoe that I own but am not enthralled with, has also had its share of financial difficulties. It is undergoing additional changes at present. Some may say that this history has affected the firm’s consistency in quality as well. A article from the Robb report is interesting: http://robbreport.com/Articles/Style/Ac ... -Marks.asp

I find this passage interesting. Can you describe the financial difficulties experienced by EG, particularly with respect to how these may be related to present changes (price increase, departures of Tony Gaziano and Susie Jones)?

JLibourel wrote: I've had a few correspondents tell me that they don't think Edward Greens are nearly as deserving of the slavish adulation they receive on these fora. One LL member for whose opinions I have high respect has told me he considers them no better made than Allen-Edmonds--more elegantly styled but certainly not worth the high prices. Another chap (not an LL member, I think) had a somewhat similar reaction after getting his first pair of EGs. The few EGs I have seen have not made me particularly rueful that I "frittered" my money (as somebody accused me in another forum) on A-Es rather that buying four or five pairs of EGs.

JLibourel, to say that Allen-Edmonds shoes may be as well-constructed as EGs is not to say that they are worth anywhere near the price of the latter. First, most would argue that EG's leather is significantly better than A-E's to begin with--just higher-quality leather--but it is in the finishing of that leather, via subtle antiquing, that the real gap is seen. But more importantly, of what value to the person wanting an elegant dress shoe, is the A-E lineup if there isn't a single truly stylish/elegant (by that person's standards) model in it? Many of us want elegant shoes for dress occasions. Are we to say, "Well, A-E shoes are just as well-constructed as the elegant shoe I would really like, and they're much cheaper; therefore, I'll purchase an inelegant shoe"? A-Es are just fine, in my opinion and for my purposes, for less-dressy work situations and for casual wear, but they just don't come up to the minimal standard of elegant style that I want for dress wear and special occasions. This is not an "either-or" situation. We can like both--each for its unique contribution. But "good value for money" is not necessarily actually "good." A pair of Rockports at $25 would have to be considered good value for money, but Rockports would certainly not be considered "good" shoes in the sense that LL forumers would use that term. Perhaps for your needs, the A-E Park Avenue model is sufficiently stylish and elegant, and if so, fine. You will be happy with them. For many, however, the Park Avenue (and the rest of the lineup) fall short of the threshold, and something else is needed. Value for money and construction quality are no longer relevant.

Edit. BTW, I realize JLibourel, that you have not used the term "value for money" in your post. Your point, however, seems to revolve around this notion, and you have articulated your case this way in other threads. If one has a certain absolute threshold of quality that cannot be attained except by paying a high price, all the "value for money" arguments in the world are completely irrelevant. I should also note that Quality, of course, consists of much more than just quality of construction.

[dopey]

I cannot speak to Church's quality post-Prada or whether the change in ownership resulted in a decline from the pre-Prada standards. I can say that as of 10 years ago, Churches were my favorite shoes. Prior to stress-fractures in both feet that required the use of orthotics, I found the perfect fit in Church's [9]73 last. Contrary to what someone has posted above, the custom-grade shoes on that last were linen-lined (with the exception of one leather lined model) and made of full grain, not corrected grain, leather. While stitched aloft rather than channel stitched, they were of very high quality and I had several pairs that lasted through multiple re-soleings. In fact, one remains - a cape-buck (suede) full brogue (the Chetwynd model (the cape-buck is leather lined)). The [9]73 lasted Churches were well made, had a shape that remains, to me, the classic English shoe shape, and came in full range of styles - cap-toe, punch cap, semi brogue, full brogue and monk - and a variety of colors plus suede. The brand may no longer be the same (I don't know) and it may no longer represent good value, but it was once nothing to scoff at.