Sperry Topsider Authentic Originals for J Crew

A couple of years ago I was at a thrift store in Decatur, perusing their wares, and came across a pair of Sperry Topsider Authentic Originals. They appeared to be nearly unworn, and were my size, so I picked them up. You can see a picture of them above, from a previous blog post.

In comparing them Sperry's current offerings, it was clear that they were not a style that was currently available. They were most similar to the Sahara color that was being offered, but, in my opinion, there was something about them that made them superior. Maybe it's the gold eyelets or maybe it's the fact that the leather develops a great patina, but I love those shoes and have worn the heck out of them (I wore them today, in fact). I've always hoped that Sperry would release them again, but so far, I've been out of luck.

Although I rarely shop at J Crew nowadays, I was looking at their website the other day and, lo and behold, the Holy Grail Topsiders were on there. I looked over the details and am convinced that it's the same shoe (except, at William noted in the comments, mine have two eyelets and the J Crew ones have three eyelets). The only problem is that, like everything at J Crew now, they're overpriced at $110. Is $110 too much to spend on a pair of Topsiders? Probably. However, these really are great, and so versatile, and I would recommend biting the bullet and picking up a pair. I don't think you'll regret it.

Review: LL Bean Signature shoes

With my Christmas money I picked up two new pairs of shoes from LL Bean Signature. I got a pair of the Signature Waxed Canvas Maine Hunting Shoe (in the original Marsh Brown color), and a pair of suede Eastport blucher mocs, in the Dark Khaki color. Here are a few thoughts on each pair.

Although there were a number of reviews for these boots when they first came out, I've got to say that really like the Waxed Canvas Maine Hunting Shoe. Not only do they look good, and also provide a different look from the typical Bean Boot, but they also are really light, especially compared to the leather 10" Maine Hunting Shoes that I have (they are the same height). As a result, they'll probably be more comfortable to wear as the weather gets warm.

As for the blucher mocs, I certainly like the appearance. The suede seems nice and I like the color, especially with jeans (though some of the indigo from my jeans has begun to rub off on them). I like the fact that they have the old type of moccasin sole (not the kind used on the regular LL Bean blucher mocs), and they seem like they might have a slightly rounder toe box than the regular kind. However, the thing that I'm not a big fan of is the insole.

The regular Bean blucher mocs come with a removable insole with a leather liner underneath. The Eastport blucher mocs have a leather insole that is not removable. As someone who wears Superfeet removable insoles with my shoes for arch support, I'm unable to use them with these shoes, and find that the insole that comes with the shoe is not quite as comfortable. Also, I've got a feeling that the insoles may get gross pretty quickly if they are worn sockless (though this isn't really a problem for me). It's not a dealbreaker for me, but it is something that I would change if I could.

On a somewhat related note, many people are aware that LL Bean Boots can be resoled for around $40 when the soles get worn down. Something that people may not be aware of is the fact that Bean Boots can be resoled to a different size. So, if you've found a great pair on Ebay but are one size too big or too small, you should be able to send them back to Bean for resoling into the size that you need.

Confession: I wear tiny women's socks

When I started A Trip Down South, I purposefully decided that it would not be a blog in which I shared my deepest thoughts and feelings. There can be a lot of oversharing in the blogosphere (I have a college-era LiveJournal, now buried in the recesses of the internets, to prove that), and I did not want to go in that direction. However, this will be one of those times. I will let you in on a secret, one that only my closest friends know: I wear tiny women's socks.

It all started back with a pair of Banana Republic loafers socks. They were small socks that were, as the name suggests, cut really low to be able to be worn invisibly with loafers. I got two pairs of them a number of years ago and found that they worked really well with my LL Bean rubber mocs, allowing me to finally wear my rubber mocs "sockless" without having disgusting sweaty, smelly feet. The problem with them was that there wasn't really any elastic around the top and they would easily slip down off my heel.

Fast forward a couple of years and while visiting my friend Sean, who works at the Atlanta shoe store, Abbadabba's, I spotted some small socks that looked similar to my loafer socks. They were, however, marketed as women's socks. Seeing as how I wore those loafer socks fairly often, and how I was getting tired of the obvious results of wearing boat shoes sockless in the heat of the South in the summertime, I picked up a couple of pairs.

They are No-Show Socks made by Hue (which most women readers will likely recognize as the maker of tights, leggings, etc.). Unlike my Banana Republic pair, these have elastic around the upper portion, which allows them to stay up better. However, the best part about them is that they have a little silicone pad on the back heel which helps prevent them from slipping down off the heel. While I'm not going to say that they never slip, I would say 85% of the time they manage to stay up, regardless of what type of shoes I'm wearing. I currently wear them with boat shoes, blucher mocs, Wallabees, LL Bean rubber mocs, penny loafers, and other types of dress shoes. I wear them probably 95% of the time nowadays.

So, I recognize that a number of you, especially Dusty if he is reading this, are questioning my manhood. While that's not something that I'm really concerned about, I would like to present my logic in deciding to wear these for those who can't seem to wrap their heads around it:

1. I like the sockless look. It is one that I feel presents a touch of casualness to any outfit. I also feel like it looks better with shorts than any type of sock.
2. Feet sweat, no matter who you are.
3. Because feet sweat, wearing shoes without socks will make your feet and shoes smell horrible. Using powder is only a stop-gap solution.
4. No one likes feet and shoes that smell bad.
5. Shoes that are worn sockless simply do not last as long.
6. These socks allow one to have the sockless look while absorbing enough sweat as to avoid having smelly shoes and feet. They also provide more warmth than true sockless wear, allowing one to go "sockless" even in cold weather.
7. Because no one will see these socks, unless you remove your shoes of course, you don't have to worry about what others will think. If a person wears tiny socks and no one sees them, is he really wearing tiny socks?

So that is my argument for these socks. If you live in Atlanta, stop by Abbadabba's and pick some up. If you don't live in Atlanta, pick some up from Nordstrom. I wear a size 9.5 shoe and the large works for me, but if your feet are much larger they may not be work for you. You can also check out Mocc Socks, which are similar, and marketed towards men, though I cannot attest to their quality or ability to stay up.

LL Bean Moccasins, old and new

Several months back I made a trip to a thrift store in Roswell and came across two pairs of old LL Bean moccasins--a pair of blucher mocs and a pair of camp mocs. Having been in possession of a pair of the current Bean blucher mocs for a little while, I was quite intrigued at the superior quality of the leather on the old pair of bluchers, as well as the difference in the shape of the toe box. Since both pairs fit, in spite of their worn out soles, I went ahead and bought them both (something like $15 total).

Old bluchers, after being resoled

It was a while before I finally took the old bluchers in to get resoled, but I was able to take them to my local shoe repair place and get actual moccasin soles put on them, and I also replaced the leather liner on the inside of the shoe. Upon comparing them to the current versions, I have reached these conclusions.

Old bluchers

Current bluchers

1. The toe box on the old pair is superior. It is rounder and more elongated; the modern pair has a squarer, stumpier toe box. The older pair just plain looks better.
2. The vamp on the older pair is a bit higher. This isn't necessarily a good or bad thing, but for wearing with shorts, and for slipping on and off without untying the laces, the lower vamp is better.
3. The leather on the old pair is much better. It is thicker, sturdier, looks better, and is clearly able to improve its appearance with age. The modern leather is thinner, looks faker, and seems incapable of developing any sort of patina. However, I will say that the leather used on the modern version is much softer and more comfortable.
4. Of somewhat less importance, the older version of the moccasin sole generally looks better compared the high-tech-looking sole used on the modern pair.

"Are your shoes from the future?"


Regarding the camp mocs, that has been a bit of a different story. I tried to purchase a pair of the modern camp mocs a couple of years ago, but had real trouble with the sizing. I couldn't get a pair that would fit snugly enough on my feet without being too tight. I ended up giving up and exchanging them for the blucher mocs that I have. The camp mocs that I found at the thrift store seemed to fit pretty well, however, and I was pretty excited about getting them back into working condition.

However, I took them back up to above-mentioned cobbler (this was after I got the blucher mocs resoled), and was told by the owner that the company that made the moccasin soles is no longer making them and that he couldn't get any. I was pretty miffed by this; you mean to tell me that there is no company in the entire country, or world even, that makes the old-style moccasin soles? I ended up deciding to just take my shoes back and wait until I could find someone else to put the proper sole on them.

I ended up taking them to Midtown Shoe Repair about three weeks ago. I brought in my pair of old blucher mocs to show the guy what I wanted, and he seemed confident that he could do what I wanted. He told me it would be two weeks, and after waiting patiently, I went back up there this past Saturday. Upon getting the shoes back, I saw that they had a boat shoe-style sole on them. "This isn't what I wanted" I told the guy. In his broken English he told me, like the other cobbler told me, that the company that he used to get them from no longer makes them. It didn't matter, I was still pretty peeved that he went ahead and put the wrong soles on them. Maybe if he had asked for my phone number when I dropped off the shoes, he could have called and told me that he couldn't get what I wanted. Knowing that there was little I could do at this point, I went ahead and paid and knew that I wouldn't take my business there again. I will still continue to seek out someone who can put the right soles on them, but I guess I will wear them in the meantime.

So, aside from the soles, how is this old version of camp mocs? Pretty good, I would say. While I can't do a direct comparison since I don't have a pair of the modern camp mocs, the superiority of the old pair mostly comes down to the superior leather. As you can see, these shoes have taken on some very good character, and in spite of their age (who knows how old they are), they are still in very good condition. The laces are even the original ones (or at least the ones that were on them when I bought them). The fit is alright; the right shoe is pretty tight on my instep, and they could be a little most snug in the heel, but overall they work pretty well. If I actually wore them with socks, they'd probably fit even better.

Boat shoe sole on a moccasin: what a travesty

So what can be taken from this comparison? Well, LL Bean's camp and blucher mocs have certainly changed over the past decades. While they are still classic, versatile, affordable and reliable footwear, the old versions are simply better. I think that LL Bean needs to go back to a better quality leather and use the old pattern (including the old toe box). I can't really think of a reason why Bean would sell the current version, except that it is likely cheaper to make, and possibly represents a greater profit margin. My plea to Bean, and to Alex Carleton and the team at LL Bean Signature: bring back the old version, even if it costs a little more. It's simply better.

Wolverine 1000 Mile "Gentry" boots

I don't typically get caught up in all of the hype surrounding the launches of new clothing lines or designers' latest seasonal previews or whatever. I don't usually buy clothes because they are cool now, or the latest thing (that is called "fashion," not "style") and I think the Wolverine 1000 Mile Boot collection is a good reason why I don't get into it.

If you have been around the men's clothing forum or blog world for any amount of time, you may remember all of the hubbub surrounding the launch of Wolverine's 1000 Mile Boots. It was to be a collection of boots "pulled from the archives" and "Made in the US"--all of the things that appeal to the "urban woodsman" crowd. People on SF were counting down until they were released and bloggers couldn't wait and kept posting pictures of them with the latest information to be released. When the whole line finally launched, it was with more of a whimper than a bang. Turns out that only the 1000 Mile Boot was made in the US, not the whole collection, and the talk of them eventually disappeared and was replaced by the normal arguments of which boot was more awesome: Red Wings or Alden Indy Boots.

In light of all of the hype and eventual letdown related to it, Wolverine did release some interesting boots as a part of their collection, made in the US or not. Of those, I think that two of the most underrated pairs were in their Gentry collection, the Ramble and the Upland.


The Ramble

The Upland (which I prefer)

Inspired by old school field boots, the Ramble and Upland are fairly understated and feature Pendleton wool insets. I think these are good looking boots and I would love to get my hands on some. However, another thing that really annoys me about all of these "limited collections" and whatnot is just how damn hard it is to actually get your hands on them.

Hey Wolverine: I want to buy your boots, I'm trying to give you money. Why don't you just put them on your damn website like normal companies? Or better yet, why don't you just mail me a pair and I'll talk about how awesome they are on my blog?

Frankly it astounds me. Anyways, ff you know of any places that actually carry these boots, or know of a similar boot that is easy for me to purchase, please let me know.

Recommended: Birkenstock Blue Footbed Arch Support Insoles

If you're like me, you probably enjoy wearing boat shoes, moccasins, or other shoes that have absolutely no arch support. While I am typically a subscriber to the "sometimes it hurts to look good" school of thought, last fall my knee really started to bother me. I've never really had any other joint issues, but I eventually figured that it was a result of wearing shoes with absolutely no support pretty much every day. Knowing that I needed to do something about it, I went and talked to my buddy Sean who works at Abbadabba's, a local shoe store that caters primarily to hippies, outdoorsy people, and weirdos who insist on wearing vegan shoes.

After trying out several different kinds of insoles, I eventually decided on the Birkenstock Blue insole. It was actually pretty incredible; as soon as I tried them, the pain in my knee immediately went away. Unfortunately they were about $60, but one of the benefits of having a friend who is a manager is at a shoe store is he hooks you up with his discount (thanks, Sean).

I've been wearing them for probably four or five months now and have to say that I am very pleased. They fit in pretty much any shoe that I own (primarily my boat shoes and Bean Blucher mocs), and are fairly comfortable. In fact, if I try going without them for any period of time, it isn't long before my feet and knee start to hurt. My primary quibble with them, aside from the price, is that they do not work so well with sockless wear. They can become dirty and a bit smelly pretty quickly. There are some other companies that make plastic insoles, and I may look into them once the weather gets warmer. However, if you wear boat shoes and/or moccasins on a regular basis, I would highly recommend these. While you can find them online, I would really recommend finding a place near you where you can try them on, though they did seem to fit pretty true-to-size.

$7.50 Sperry Topsiders

I had some time to kill the other night so I stopped by the thrift store. I was about to leave without finding anything when I spotted a pair of Topsiders.

Normally causal shoes (and really most shoes) at the thrift store are in less than desirable condition, but these Topsiders looked almost unworn. On top of that, they were my size, and only $7.50! So I snagged them, sprayed them with a little Lysol when I got home, and then were good to go the next day.

Very little wear on the sole
I've got a pair of the Authentic Originals in the classic dark brown with white soles, but I think that the pair is actually much easier to wear, and more practical during the colder months.

The footbeds were in good shape (the indentation is from my insole)

New Eastland blucher mocs...kind of

Tonight I had some time to kill so I swung by the Ross in Decatur to see if I could find some socks (over-the-calf socks are hard to track down). While I was there, I saw a couple of pairs of these Eastland blucher mocs on the shoe rack and went in for a closer look.

They seemed to be at least comparable to the pair of Bean blucher mocs I was wearing at the time, if not a little better. "Made in China"--disappointing but not a dealbreaker. They were labeled size 10 and since I usually wear a 9 or 9.5, I figured they were worth a try. I was surprised at how snug they seemed, but I chalked it up to the pair of socks I was wearing, and for $17, I figured it was worth it.

Well, upon getting home, I removed the tag and tried them on again. Really, they were pretty snug, so I looked at the tag again. It did indeed read "10M"...."WOMEN'S." Oops. Chalk that one up to the androgynous nature of preppy clothing. So they won't seem to work with socks, but without socks I think that they will actually be alright. I'm going to give them a shot at least.