Sean Connery's Shoemaker for the Bond films?
Dirty Punker
...Your Eyes Only, darling."Posts: 2,587MI6 Agent
There has been a lot of discussion about and photos of Connery getting fitted at Anthony Sinclair and Mr Fish for his suits and shirts but as far as I'm concerned, we have no info about his shoemaker for the Bond films.
Roger's loafers were made by Gucci and Ferragamo as per real life but we still have no info about Connery.
Unlike his trilby for Dr No, nobody has claimed responsibility for making his shoes.
Any info and any ideas that I'm missing would be greatly appreciated.
(Lobb? Church's? etc...)
Roger's loafers were made by Gucci and Ferragamo as per real life but we still have no info about Connery.
Unlike his trilby for Dr No, nobody has claimed responsibility for making his shoes.
Any info and any ideas that I'm missing would be greatly appreciated.
(Lobb? Church's? etc...)
a reasonable rate of return
Comments
GBP2800 for shoes?
It’s probably something as innocuous as Craig favors C&J shoes. Brosnan wore Church’s as well, so that brand had history with Bond just like Lobb. They’re all great choices, and I would assume each has the capacity to produce a high volume of shoes for the films.
Bespoke shoes and suits cost considerably less in the 1960s. The cost has risen much more than inflation. They did not make all of Connery's shoes, and I know another brands has told me that they provided shoes too.
Bespoke shoes, huh? It must've been a shame he had ditched them for those dreadful two tones from the Japanese assassin in You Only Live Twice.
This begs the question; the Luffields, for example, can they be bought bespoke in England and be the same model as the RTW French ones in CR or are they all making the same shoes but it's a different team that makes them at a different quality level?
Don't let the similar names confuse you, since 1976 John Lobb Ltd in London and John Lobb Paris have been completely separate. Before 1976, the companies had the same ownership, but since they both only made bespoke shoes at that time they operated separately. Because JLL and JLP are entirely separate companies, you cannot get JLL to make a shoe that JLP makes. The quality of JLL and JLP bespoke shoes should be on a similar level, though I have never seen any JLP bespoke in person. Bespoke shoes from both companies will be even better quality than the ready-to-wear shoes from JLP. For bespoke shoes, there are no models. JLL an certainly make you a 2-eyelet plain-toe derby like the Luffield, but it will be in their style, not JLP's style.
Yet again, the depth and breadth of your Bond knowledge astounds me! -{ -{ -{
For the movie, even in the 60's, it would likely have been by one of the Northampton outfitters, and thus probably Goodyear welted.
I am impressed they used a closed channel soled shoe to alter, which is typically a pricier choice for a prop.
To have been an outfitter and produce all those suits etc. that’s probably enough business for a year just from a movie.
Hand-lasted for the 1960s wasn't such a big deal. Today a bunch of Northampton shoemakers hand-last their shoes, and those are Goodyear welted. If these shoes are from John Lobb Ltd (which some of Connery's are) they would be hand-lasted, hand-welted and overall completely handmade. Closed channel stitching may be impressive today, but it would have been even more common for mid-range shoes in the 1960s. I used to get shoes with closed channels for 300 USD just 12 years ago. In the 1960s, shoemakers were interested in making their shoes the best they could while today it's more about figuring out where they can cut corners. Forgoing closed channels on the bottom is one of the big places where quality has been cut.