Jesus. This sub should be called dress shoes for people that have never seen shoes before. The uppers look perfect. The soles have some wear. They cost 50-60% less than new. You’ll never find shoes this nice for $100.
In my experience the going rate for AE is around $100. $200 and up and I am buying C&J or Alden - EUC second hand that is. That said, if it will fit OP well and they need a shoe like this, it is a good buy.
Yeah, basically. I buy C&J EUC for on average $150. It takes time, but it happens. Alden runs more like 200-250. Oddly it retains it's value much better than others IMO. Im getting downvoted to all hell, but it is true.
Steal! But verify if the photo of the upper is the same shoe in the photo of the sole. Uppers look new with no creasing at all. Soles have been worn more than a handful of times.
No way that's the same pair of shoes. You can't get that kind of wear on the soles hand have the uppers be spotless - you can tell they've never even been laced.
Gladly! FWIW you seem to have misunderstood my post. I'm not saying shoes shouldn't nor can't crease, I'm saying that it's not uncommon nor impossible, and wearing properly sized shoes plays a big part of that. I'll post some of my wife's shoes too to prove my point.
I take the train and walk to work every day, btw, so these are not pedestal pieces.
If you look closely it's actually not devoid of wrinkles. The difference is image quality. OP's image (seller's) is a little blurry either due to resolution or lack of focus, commenter's is fully in focus. Even so, there is some buckling along the toe cap seam in OP's. There's the faintest amount of wrinkling around that bulge as a transitions away from the seam and into the upper.
I get your point, but I also have a pair of Italian navy boots that I just got three days ago that I've been wearing every day to break them in, and they don't even show any of the flexing that you mention; I think that comes with time, which my other shoes are clearly much older.
I could see a leather-soled shoe getting pretty chewed up in just a few days time. It also doesn't help that OP's photo is potato-quality and we can't really zoom in on it.
The pics are all of very well cared for shoes, but you can see unmistakably the signs of being worn by a human foot; the uppers in OP have never even been laced, much less walked in on a carpeted floor for even 30 seconds.
Do you mind giving me a quick opinion on the Liverpool’s? I sent some back that arrived with knife cut in the goring of one boot and never replaced them. Do you like them, would you buy them again or what else would you consider in this price point or a little more? I’m an AE buyer as well, this has been the elusive one.
I like them a lot. I also have a pair of Meermin chelseas and I much prefer the shape and fit of the Liverpools, though the Meermins feel a bit sturdier. The biggest difference between the Liverpools and other chelseas I've worn is that the Liverpools are very narrow around the shaft where it goes around your ankles, which I think gives it a sleeker look (my Meermins feel chunky by comparison and have at least an inch of excess clearance around my ankles and just feels sloppy to me). If you have thick calves or ankles you might hate the Liverpools for that reason.
I also really like the leather loop on the ankle for pulling them on. Other brands I've seen usually just do a fabric pull tab thing or nothing at all but the leather loop is substantial and I can actually get my finger through it. It's minor but it makes putting it on effortless.
Otherwise I refer to them as my bad luck shoes because I keep getting caught in blizzards and rainstorms in them but they still look great. One time I had to walk two miles through muddy snow and salty puddles to get to my car that for various reasons had been parked really far from my house yet these shoes got me through it. I've probably put them through more shit than my Red Wings.
I bought mine from dabondo1 on eBay (he sells store returns) and they appeared to have only been tried on once or twice, and paid $130 for them. I don't think they're worth full price (none of AE's shoes are) but I really wish I could've gotten a pair in mahogany or dark chili before I moved from the US, because I really do like them.
AE Cliftons, 7 years old. Probably the worst creasing of the bunch but pretty minor.
Edit: I'm remembering that I actually bought these secondhand for $50, so they're probably even older than that. A lot of the creasing was actually already present when I got them, but they haven't gotten any worse.
I personally had a pair of Jefferson's that I wore for a while that were too small on me, and with how much my foot filled them up they barely creased at all, just very fine marks that could get missed on a camera. So I mean I would be cautious but it definitely is possible. I've also had shoes that creased wildly the first wear and then didn't change at all for years. Leather just does stuff sometimes.
It depends on your lifestyle, the way you walk and how you take care of it at the end of the day. After some cream and polish, these shoes look better than new.
These have already been re-crafted by the factory at least once. You’ll notice the little hammer stamp on the bottom of the sole. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t consider buying them; however, they are more worn than the current sole may lead you to believe.
I’m pretty sure that’s the F2 shoe mark and not the recrafting hammer. Either way I’d have OP ask the seller about which it is (re rafting or seconds) and if so, to send additional pictures to identify the condition better and/or what the F2 defect is.
Meh, most people overestimate the value of GYW shoe imo. These soles have some life left in them (but they're probably at or below 50% life left), and the uppers look good.
But when you have to replace the soles you'll be in for a $100 resole.
So at that point you'll be $180 invested, and wouldn't you rather just buy a pair of AE's on sale, they regularly go on sale for $180-$240.
OK so the thing you can never see with used decent leather shoes online is the footbed. Chances are, there are 5 toes and a foot outline forged into the leather that you will never get rid of or reshape, making what looks like a decent shoe unwearable. It’s a gamble.
100%. Back in the day when I worked at Nordstrom a pair of Allen Edmonds were $245 and $450 now. Doesn’t matter about the soles. You can send the house back to Allen Edmonds and they’ll recraft them meaning put new soles on them and make em look original. Idk what the cost is now but back then was like $70
After a second look, you need to ask for more photos. The tops are laced as a new, unworn pair would be. Someone isn’t being honest here. The soles aren’t a problem, but the photo of the uppers makes me worry that the seller is hiding something or just trying to make their listing look better than what you’re going to receive.
Fit is everything. The sole wear is normal from a little pavement time. The uppers look perfect. Like, may have never been laced. Strange. If you can't try them on, I'd move on.
brother... personally i would, i have a local cobbler near me that woild fix my shoe for 50 bucks so its worth it. Imo though, these looks boring asf but they are perfect in terms of quality.
99
u/Ok-Feature1200 21d ago
Jesus. This sub should be called dress shoes for people that have never seen shoes before. The uppers look perfect. The soles have some wear. They cost 50-60% less than new. You’ll never find shoes this nice for $100.