TM Lewin Shoes - Decent Quality?

[SouthPender]

I'm looking for a pair of presentable black plain-toe oxfords to wear for infrequent formal occasions. Because these occasions will be very infrequent, I'd like to spend less for these shoes than for shoes I'd wear more often. On the other hand, one doesn't want to appear, on these occasions, to be wearing cheap shoes! Right now (until the end of January, I believe), TM Lewin has their shoes (and everything else) on sale for supposedly 50% off. I'd like to consider the following shoes:



This is the Mayfair model. At 90 GBP, they're dirt cheap. The description indicates that they are Goodyear welted, made of calfskin, and have leather lining. A query to Lewin as to the origins of these shoes was answered with the information that Lewin doesn't reveal the maker--only that they are made for Lewin by a British shoe firm producing the shoes in India.

Does anyone know more about these shoes than Lewin is revealing?

Can anyone comment on their likely quality and suitability for the use noted?

Does anyone have any idea of the toe shape (rounded, tapered, etc.), as this is the only picture given by Lewin, and they are unwilling to provide any more.

Should I go for these or bite the bullet and get some C&J's, like the newer Alex (wholecut) or Dalton (much like the Lewin shoe), both on the newer 348 last? Or should I consider something else altogether?

Any help greatly appreciated.

[RWS]

I'm looking for a pair of presentable black plain-toe oxfords to wear for infrequent formal occasions. . . .

With formal or semi-formal evening clothes (and, I'd expect, no daytime gathering in Vancouver is even semi-formal), one really should wear pumps. In my occasional rambles through eBay, I've seen new pairs from decent makers offered for US$100 or so.

If, instead, you seek shoes to wear with informal clothes -- dark suits and the like -- why not spend a bit more, as black plain-toe oxfords must be the most versatile of all men's shoes today? I thought that I'd read a thread on AAAC some time ago that thoroughly excoriated Lewin's Indian-made shoes as uncomfortable and short-lived. Alden's, on the other hand are both very comfortable and durable; and, of course, the very name lauds the founder of the Lounge.

[Hanseat]

If I may I'd like to add another reason that speaks agianst the purchase of these shoes (90GBP is still money that is better invested elsewhere):

As I read these shoes are being made in India. Despite a british influence I would seriously doubt that the craftsmanship is good. But mostly I'd like to add that it is morally reprehensible (this might be too strong a word) as the question of the health of those employed in the Indian shoe-industry is seriously in doubt. In fact I've just recently seen a documentary about the serious impact the tanning chemicals have on the health of the tanners in India. Furthermore I'd question that the shoes ever cost Lewin more than 30 GBP to produce (3 times the sales price- this is just a guess though) as I do not believe that the working-condition in the factory are something to brag about (otherwise they would do that and not send you an e-mail in which they refuse to surrender any more information). That in turn means that Lewin is turning an immoral profit with these shoes (Don't understand me wrong, please, but I do not believe companies should sell goods for 600% of their own cost when they could sell a much better shoe for the same price, which then would even be made in England. For 180 GBP one could easily buy a shoe that was made under much better labor-conditions and thus wouldn't have to support such business practices.

As a sidenote I am wondering why Hindu's apparently don't have any problems working with calf-leather?

[Prince Barry]

I know that the quality of Tyrwhitt's shirts has been questioned, but in their catalogue they also list shoes at a similar price to Lewins. Tyrwhitts state that their shoes are made in England.

[rjman]

As a sidenote I am wondering why Hindu's apparently don't have any problems working with calf-leather?

I confess I find your tone somewhat insulting, sir. In answer, however, I would submit that a very large percentage of Hindus (note absence of apostrophe in plural, for your future edification) would not handle calf just as they would not eat it. However, there are in India 1) Hindus who are not so observant, 2) Hindus who are (sadly still) considered low-caste and thus may be more likely to handle animal parts, 3) thousands of non-Hindus who have nothing against cows and 4) enough desperately poor people for whom even a job handling calf leather is better than starving to death in the gutter. Also please be reminded that one of the elements that touched off the Sepoy Rebellion (in India called "the Great Revolt") of 1857 was the rumor that the waxed paper in which native Sepoy soldiers' cartridges were wrapped was made with wax from cows and pigs, and thus anathema to Hindus and to Muslims.

[Mulberrywood]

I strongly agree with RJman. India is a very complex country and it is impossible to stereotype or easily draw conclusions.

I lived in India as a boy (I have family there) and found craftsmanship for some products far superior to what you can find in Europe. As for poor working conditions, I am certain that that can be an issue at times, but the issue is very complex, and often poor conditions are better than no conditions and I will leave it at that....

[Hanseat]

I would like to sincerely apologize for the remark I made.
I am aware that India as the world's biggest democracy is a complex country.

Though this can and should not serve as an apology, I wrote these lines way too late (1:44 am) and they only came to me as an afterthought. I am cognizant that the caste-system is de facto still in existence and sadly so. I do have to agree that at times when any work is better than none it is perfectly understandable that people subject themselves to these hazards. I was only speculating about the working-conditions of the craftsmen but do not believe that they are in compliance with western labor regulations as this would increase the cost of production and hence reduce the incentive to move the production.

[jekarwoski]

Tyrwhitts state that their shoes are made in England.

I read here, or on another board, that they are made by Loake.

[Prince Barry]

Thank you for that info J. I might take a look at them the next time I am in London.

[AnthonyJordan]

Tyrwhitts state that their shoes are made in England.

I read here, or on another board, that they are made by Loake.

Yes, as I understand. The top line Tyrwhitt offers is, I believe, Loake's "1880" range and are reputed to be of good quality given the price, although at full price you would be better off buying shoes with the Loake name, as they are somewhat cheaper, or indeed buying own-brand shoes from a firm called Herring Shoes, as these are derived from the 1880s but with a higher specification, but are still cheaper than Tyrwhitt's. I own them and they are a nice, if firm, shoe. The 8 1/2s fit a little large for my taste, but only a trifle.

In respect of the Lewin shoes, I have owned a pair and also participated in one or two threads about them on AAAC. My recollection is that the strongest criticisms of them came from me; I noted that my pair (of McKenna Oxfords) had rapidly shewn signs of salt staining and water ingress through the quarters and as a consequence I had returned them for a full refund. This confirmed my high opinion of Lewin's customer service and it is of course possible that I had a duff pair. From recollection the toe was a little more squared-off than I would have chosen but not unduly so.

If you are willing to consider something else entirely you might consider spending a little more (say £120-30) and buying from Alfred Sargent's top line, which seems to get very good reviews on the basis of the balance between quality and price.

[Collarmelton]

One of the lessons I learned years ago was not to skimp on shoes, since the replacement cost for several pairs of lesser shoes soon outstrips the cost of a single, high quality, but more expensive pair.

In New York, where one walks all the time, during school days I went through a number of pairs of Florsheim's, Lloyd and Haig's and Johnston and Murphy's in a single year. I bought these because I was a student, and mistakenly thought I was being fiscally prudent by opting for inexpensive shoes. But despite lavishing all the attention I could on them (I’m a former infantry officer, for whom shoe care is a sacred rite) they never lasted more than 9-13 months before having irreparable structural problems. Then I invested the Church’s top of the line, which at that time (1990) was a superb shoe but expensive for a penny-counting student, and was able to squeeze years out of them. I have one pair I bought in 1994 that is only now experiencing catastrophic failure of the uppers. There was a period of about five years in the 1990’s during which I did not buy shoes because I didn’t have to, so the savings over time is apparent.

I recommend that one save one’s money and buy a pair of very high quality shoes such as Greens, CJ bench grades or Tricker’s (the stylish models) since these will give years and years of service, and of course will look smart. I would also echo the comment above that Alfred Sargent’s (the Premier line) are also very good, for less money. Good shoes are not an extravagance.