I have a separate article about this English brand K Shoes, in this one, we just review the shoes themselves.
Do you have any questions about what year it is?
You cannot find such a last on the market no matter how hard you try.
The large square round toe, even if I deliberately chose Maftei with a very definite German-Austrian last, is not at all up to this level.
Is it ugly to be wide and round? I can say that my personal aesthetic is still a little difficult to accept, but the lines are harmonious.
The side view of the toe, the downward curve, and the height of the toe are all British shoes at a glance.
What exactly are the characteristics of British shoes? Assuming a blind review, can you tell which one is British?
I think it is possible, the characteristic of British shoes is harmony, or the details have been carefully considered.
This should be due to the understated but sophisticated connotation demanded by classic menswear.
Everyone knows that the most common British shoes for city wear must be black cap toe Oxford.
What about the countryside or the outdoors? The answer is Full Brogue, but it’s still Oxford.
This is a pair of bespoke shoes from John Lobb St James, a very good example of country shoes.
And the Americans on the other side of the ocean, think that the most formal shoe in the world is Derby, and with brogues, I tug at my heart and can’t breathe.
Because it’s also an extremely classic style, and it’s not like the one from John Lobb St James, which has a ugly swan-neck element, there’s not much to talk about.
Just look at the stitch density of the upper, and you will say at a glance that this must be a high-quality shoe!
After so many years, it is still top notch, second to none!
At the time, it may have been a high-class standard, but now, it is super-class!
The “middle” way of hiding stitches on the welt which is the default configuration of John Lobb’s Prestige line, but people who lived long before treated this as normal.
Of course, it’s not perfect, for example, when it comes to the waist, it’s relatively rough, including the stitch density and lack of fudge.
Compared to the impeccable upper, the sole is much more mediocre. Open channel and square flat waist do not speak of elegance.
The heel is also quite interesting, it is all rubber, and then there is the brand K Shoes on it.
All-rubber heel, which is generally considered to be low-end, such as Allen Edmonds. But this pair, whether it was added by the guest request, or whether it was originally there, it is hard to tell.
Do you feel the heel is particularly high? If the rubber heel was added later, then the original bottom layer is full leather, without a little bit of rubber, which does not seem to be very reasonable as well.
Looking from the side, you can also see that the heel is relatively high, which causes the focus of the forefoot of the shoe to be a bit forward.
From sock lining and heel bottom, everyone already knows that the brand is K Shoes, but what is this brand?
The first line on the sock lining is the Queen’s royal authorization, that is, the brand has provided shoes to the Queen, and then the trademark, K Shoes of England. The bottom three lines are the upper, sole, and half-lining made of leather.
I’ve been searching for this brand on the Internet for a long time, but the information is so scarce that I have seen that it is all produced by Loake in the later period, just like the pair of Saxone of Scotland I introduced earlier.
It is not known what the scale of this family was, whether it was one of the more than 200 that died in Northampton, and when and why it was authorized to supply shoes to the Queen.
There is information such as size on the side, but which is the last, which is the style code, and which is the production batch number cannot be interpreted due to lack of information.
This kind of shoe that pops out of the pile of history always struck my eye. High quality and the aesthetic style it brings back from a long time ago is nostalgic.
Looking at shoes, isn’t it like reading history?