The London Lounge

Just as a preface, I know we have on the board some bespoke makers who fall into the second category and whom I admire very much. I just wanted to say this is not meant as offense to you, and, indeed, perhaps you can weigh in.

As I see it, the bespoke options out there are divided among two categories: 1) the long-established firms - let us say, for example, John Lobb; and 2) the individual shoemakers with their own smaller firms.

The second category is, by and large, a cheaper option. My question is: what's the trade off? I am thinking, particularly, about long-term maintenance. If I get a pair of bespoke Lobbs, I know 10, 20, 30 years down the line, they are still going to be around, still going to have my lasts, still going to be able to resole my shoes. The same may not be true of those shoemakers in the second category.

Thoughts?

I'd guess that when the time somes the independents will sell to someone, passing on the lasts and client lists.

Still, it's a reasonable thing to worry about. I do business with both Cleverley and Paul Davies, and while the quality looks to be the same at each, and indeed the lasts may be very much the same-- as Paul might well have cut mine for Cleverley-- the one-man business model makes me glad of Paul's slightly lower prices. And I can easily see that someone would prefer to deal with a shop having more than one employee, some brand equity that can be sold when current principals retire, etc.

I have been having custom shoes for almost thirty years and while they do do a great job when a shoe needs to be refurbished, at a certain point, the world does not end if a good local shoe repaid(they are many in NYC)glues on a new sole.
Paul Davies does very good work, I just got a pair of shoes from him and they were very good