I've been trying to get @Christofle to list his top tier shoe brands, but he ain't having it lol.whether or not they are to one’s taste, (and they are certainly not mine lol) John fluevog occupies a unique niche in North American Shoe craft. I am not all that familiar with JF but I seem to recall Pacific NW Artsy Grunge and Rock & Roll as his sensibility. JF shoes are fit for rock stars in part bc they also had his patented special comfort soles and unique structure (inspired by shoes made by a 1950s Mexican manufacturing company). So despite their flamboyant appearance, JF does construct a shoe of merit.
I would argue that Fluevogs probably belong to this thread of ‘Fancy Shoes’ more than the mainstream, logo intensive Kering company fashion, department store brands, like Burberry, Gucci, Ferregamo, etc. Those, while expensive, might not quite meet the definition of ‘fancy’ relative to the bohemian JF or the very different form of ‘fancy’ evinced by premier luxury giants like Hermes, John Lobb, perhaps even Weston. Weston, IMO, straddles that line of more fashion fancy than sartorial. IMO, the jury is still out as to whether a woman’s shoe brand like Louboutin or Manolo that are certainly popular and pricy fashion statements can even compare to their sartorial cousins.
My definition of ‘fancy’ includes ‘regular’ names like Edward Green and anything sold by Leffot NY (though I’m not sure EG would be ‘fancy’ enough for @Christofle lolNot sure If Crockett & Jones or Carmina or Alden fit either. IMO, though many would disagree, Milanese fashion, most prominent name being brunello Wouldn’t qualify as a ‘fancy’ shoe bc of their construction and well lack of bona fide heritage, and I’m only half joking
There are also bespoke and MtM companies who schedule trunk show appointments out of hotel suites. S9me of their shoes are gorgeous, but to me, they aren’t quite ‘fancy ‘ either.
what I mean to say is ‘fancy‘ encompasses as wide, or as narrow, a swath as one would like,having little to do with individual taste or aesthetics.
Thank you for your encyclopedic explanation. Too long, sorry I did not read it all. I am familiar with Fluevog shoes. I worked close to the NYC store in the early 90s. The windows full of ridiculous clown shoes (“fashun”) made us wonder what man would buy that crazy stuff. I have never met a man IRL who dared to sport such outlandish shoes. Clearly, I did not run in grunge circles back in the day. 😜 My definition of “fancy” is elegant, not ridiculous (fashion vs “fashun”), but carry on.whether or not they are to one’s taste, (and they are certainly not mine lol) John fluevog occupies a unique niche in North American Shoe craft. I am not all that familiar with JF but I seem to recall Pacific NW Artsy Grunge and Rock & Roll as his sensibility. JF shoes are fit for rock stars in part bc they also had his patented special comfort soles and unique structure (inspired by shoes made by a 1950s Mexican manufacturing company). So despite their flamboyant appearance, JF does construct a shoe of merit.
I would argue that Fluevogs probably belong to this thread of ‘Fancy Shoes’ more than the mainstream, logo intensive Kering company fashion, department store brands, like Burberry, Gucci, Ferregamo, etc. Those, while expensive, might not quite meet the definition of ‘fancy’ relative to the bohemian JF or the very different form of ‘fancy’ evinced by premier luxury giants like Hermes, John Lobb, perhaps even Weston. Weston, IMO, straddles that line of more fashion fancy than sartorial. IMO, the jury is still out as to whether a woman’s shoe brand like Louboutin or Manolo that are certainly popular and pricy fashion statements can even compare to their sartorial cousins.
My definition of ‘fancy’ includes ‘regular’ names like Edward Green and anything sold by Leffot NY (though I’m not sure EG would be ‘fancy’ enough for @Christofle lol
what I mean to say is ‘fancy‘ encompasses as wide, or as narrow, a swath as one would like,
I had a pair of Fluevogs... got them when I was on maternity leave with my now 26 yo, and while they're worn out now, I still have them in my closet because they are so beautiful. And comfortable.whether or not they are to one’s taste, (and they are certainly not mine lol) John fluevog occupies a unique niche in North American Shoe craft. I am not all that familiar with JF but I seem to recall Pacific NW Artsy Grunge and Rock & Roll as his sensibility. JF shoes are fit for rock stars in part bc they also had his patented special comfort soles and unique structure (inspired by shoes made by a 1950s Mexican manufacturing company). So despite their flamboyant appearance, JF does construct a shoe of merit.
I would argue that Fluevogs probably belong to this thread of ‘Fancy Shoes’ more than the mainstream, logo intensive Kering company fashion, department store brands, like Burberry, Gucci, Ferregamo, etc. Those, while expensive, might not quite meet the definition of ‘fancy’ relative to the bohemian JF or the very different form of ‘fancy’ evinced by premier luxury giants like Hermes, John Lobb, perhaps even Weston. Weston, IMO, straddles that line of more fashion fancy than sartorial. IMO, the jury is still out as to whether a woman’s shoe brand like Louboutin or Manolo that are certainly popular and pricy fashion statements can even compare to their sartorial cousins.
My definition of ‘fancy’ includes ‘regular’ names like Edward Green and anything sold by Leffot NY (though I’m not sure EG would be ‘fancy’ enough for @Christofle lol
what I mean to say is ‘fancy‘ encompasses as wide, or as narrow, a swath as one would like,
https://meschaussettesrouges.com/products/vigogne
That's vicuna which is the World's most expensive fabric material, the vicuna produces a fibre ten times finer than cashmere.
What's your opinion on Falke's socks?
