Most guides about custom shoe manufacturing describe the process in theory. This one documents it in practice — through a real project timeline, real challenges, and the specific decisions that moved a dress shoe concept from a mood board in London to a finished, branded product on a retail shelf.
The brand is Arcfeld, a men's accessories and footwear label based in the United Kingdom. The project: two custom leather dress shoe styles — a cap-toe Oxford and a double Monk Strap — developed with LISHANGZI over 22 weeks, from initial brief to bulk delivery in Bristol.
This case study is written as a reference for any brand at a similar stage: you have a clear brand identity, a target customer, and a retail price point — but you have never manufactured footwear before, and you are not sure what the process actually involves, how long each stage takes, or where things typically go wrong.
Project Overview
| Detail | Arcfeld × LISHANGZI |
|---|---|
| Brand | Arcfeld (men's footwear and accessories, UK) |
| Manufacturing model | ODM co-development + private label branding |
| Styles developed | Cap-toe Oxford (Style A) + Double Monk Strap (Style B) |
| Construction method | Blake stitch |
| Upper material | Top-grain calf leather — black (Style A) and dark cognac (Style B) |
| Target retail price | £180–£220 per pair |
| First order quantity | 180 pairs per style (360 pairs total) |
| Target market | UK men's independent retail and DTC e-commerce |
| Total project timeline | 22 weeks (first contact to delivery in Bristol) |
The Brand and the Brief: Where This Project Started
Arcfeld's founder, James, had spent four years building a leather goods brand — belts, cardholders, small leather accessories — before deciding to expand into footwear. He knew the aesthetic he wanted: clean, minimal, British in sensibility without being overtly traditional. He had reference shoes, a mood board, and a retail price target. What he did not have was a tech pack, a last specification, or any footwear manufacturing experience.
His first message to LISHANGZI described the brand, attached reference photos of four existing shoes he admired, and asked a direct question: "I don't have technical files — is that a problem to start with?"
This is an extremely common starting point. The majority of first-time footwear brand founders arrive with brand direction rather than production documentation. What matters at this stage is not whether you have a tech pack — it is whether your brief is clear enough for a factory with co-development capability to build from.
LISHANGZI's response was a structured brief form: target retail price, target construction method, upper and sole material preferences, any fit notes (width, toe shape, heel height), order quantity estimate, and timeline requirement. James completed it within two days. The project officially started from that completed brief.
If you are at a similar stage — brand direction but no tech pack — the right starting point is ODM co-development, not full OEM. For a breakdown of the difference and when each model applies, see our guide on OEM vs ODM vs private label dress shoes.
Week 1–2: Style Selection, Last Review, and Co-Development Decision
What Happened
The first working session — conducted over video call and documented via a shared project folder — covered three decisions that shaped everything that followed.
Decision 1: Manufacturing model — ODM co-development, not full OEM.
Given that James had no existing tech pack and had not previously manufactured footwear, starting with an ODM path was the right structural choice. LISHANGZI's development library contained several Oxford and Monk Strap base styles with established lasts, tested materials, and documented construction specifications. Rather than paying for a new last to be developed from scratch ($150–$400 and 4–6 additional weeks), the project would begin with an existing Oxford last modified for the cap-toe detail, and an existing Monk Strap last that would be used without modification.
Decision 2: Construction method — Blake stitch.
The target retail price of £180–£220 positioned Arcfeld at the upper end of the contemporary menswear market — above fast-fashion dress shoes, below heritage handmade. Blake stitch was the right construction for this positioning: cleaner profile than cemented, resoleable, and significantly less expensive than Goodyear welt. The cost premium of approximately $5–$7 per pair over cemented was appropriate for the retail price point.
Decision 3: Toe shape modification — minor last adjustment for Style A.
James wanted a slightly more elongated, chisel toe on the Oxford than the factory's base last provided. This was classified as a minor last modification — a toe shape adjustment on an existing last — rather than new last development. Cost: $120, invoiced separately. Timeline impact: +1 week on S1 lead time.
The Challenge at This Stage
The most common mistake at the brief stage is under-specifying construction details and over-specifying aesthetic references. James had twelve reference images but had not thought about heel height, shank stiffness, or toe spring — all of which affect both the silhouette and the wear comfort of the final shoe.
LISHANGZI's technical team walked through each of these dimensions explicitly during the first session. A heel height of 25mm was confirmed for both styles. Toe spring of 15mm (the upward curve of the toe from the ground) was confirmed to match the elongated chisel toe aesthetic. Shank stiffness — affecting how the shoe responds underfoot — was set to firm, appropriate for a formal dress shoe.
Time at this stage: 2 weeks. Output: confirmed last selection for both styles, brief documented in a project specification sheet signed off by both parties.
Week 3–6: Material Selection and Specification Confirmation
What Happened
With the last selection confirmed, the project moved to material specification. LISHANGZI couriered a physical swatch package to Bristol within four days of the brief being signed off. The package included:
• Four top-grain calf leather swatches in black (ranging from matte to semi-gloss finish)
• Three top-grain calf leather swatches in dark cognac and tan brown
• Two insole leather options (vegetable-tanned vs chrome-tanned)
• Blake stitch thread samples in black, dark brown, and natural
• Two outsole options: leather sole and rubber-reinforced leather combination sole
James selected:
• Style A (Oxford): Matte-finish top-grain calf leather in black, vegetable-tanned insole, leather-rubber combination sole, black Blake stitch thread
• Style B (Monk Strap): Semi-gloss top-grain calf leather in dark cognac, chrome-tanned insole (selected for durability in a shoe that flexes more at the vamp), leather-rubber combination sole, dark brown Blake stitch thread
Hardware for Style B (the Monk Strap buckles) required a separate confirmation. James wanted an antique silver finish rather than the polished chrome in the factory's standard library. A sample of antique silver hardware was couriered from the factory's hardware supplier and approved.
The Challenge at This Stage
The leather selection for Style A generated the most discussion. James's reference images showed a very deep, near-black matte black — a finish that required a specific buffing technique on the factory's finishing line. The four swatches in the package ranged from standard matte black (common) to a deeper, richer matte black that required an additional finishing pass. James selected the deeper finish.
LISHANGZI flagged that this additional finishing step added $0.90 per pair to the Style A cost and required a longer finishing line time. Crucially, they also flagged that this type of deep matte finish is sensitive to scratching during packing — and recommended a specific double-tissue packing method inside the shoe box to protect the finish during transit.
This kind of proactive material-risk communication is a hallmark of an experienced manufacturing partner. A factory that simply confirms your selection without flagging downstream implications is a factory setting you up for a bulk shipment problem.
Time at this stage: 4 weeks (including courier transit, hardware sourcing, and back-and-forth approval). Output: material specification sheet finalized, hardware approved, additional finishing cost confirmed.
For a full overview of leather grades and material options used in dress shoe manufacturing, visit our materials guide.
Week 7–11: First Sample (S1) — What Arrived and What Didn't Work
What Happened
S1 arrived at James's studio in Bristol on Week 11 — four weeks after material confirmation was signed off. The package contained two pairs: one Oxford in black (UK size 9) and one Double Monk Strap in dark cognac (UK size 9), each accompanied by a sample specification sheet confirming the materials used and the construction measurements.
James's S1 evaluation produced three feedback items:
Feedback Item 1 — Oxford toe shape (unresolved).
The cap-toe broguing line was positioned 2mm too far forward, creating a slightly heavy visual weight at the toe. The chisel toe elongation was correct; the cap-toe stitching line placement needed to move 2mm rearward.
Feedback Item 2 — Monk Strap buckle height (major).
The antique silver buckle was mounted 4mm higher than James intended, which affected the visual proportion of the strap relative to the vamp. This was traced to an ambiguity in the original brief — the buckle placement had been specified as a reference photo, not a precise measurement. The factory acknowledged this gap and took responsibility for the correction without additional charge.
Feedback Item 3 — Oxford insole logo placement (minor).
The Arcfeld logo on the insole was offset by approximately 3mm from center. This was a finishing-line calibration issue. Corrected at no charge.
The Challenge at This Stage
The buckle placement issue raised a broader point about brief documentation. Visual references — photos, mood boards, existing product images — are essential for communicating aesthetic direction, but they are not precise enough for dimensions that affect construction. After the S1 review, LISHANGZI produced a dimensioned technical drawing for both styles documenting every measurable element: toe cap line position, buckle center-point from heel, logo placement coordinates, sole edge width. This drawing became the binding specification for S2 and all subsequent production.
This is a step that many brands skip on their first project — and pay for in repeated correction rounds. Creating a dimensioned spec document after S1, even if it was not in place before S1, is standard professional practice and prevents the same ambiguity from recurring in bulk.
Time at this stage: 5 weeks (4 weeks S1 production + 1 week transit and review). Output: 3 feedback items documented; dimensioned technical drawing produced; S2 commissioned.
Week 12–14: Correction Sample (S2) and Pre-Production Approval
What Happened
S2 arrived on Week 14. Both styles were corrected against the three feedback items from S1:
• Oxford cap-toe line moved 2mm rearward
• Monk Strap buckle repositioned to confirmed measurement
• Oxford insole logo placement centered
James approved both styles without further corrections. LISHANGZI proceeded immediately to the pre-production sample (PP) stage — a third pair of each style produced using confirmed bulk materials and the full finishing process, including the double-tissue packing test for Style A's deep matte finish.
The PP samples served two purposes: confirming that the corrections from S2 were stable when produced by the main production line (rather than the sampling room), and confirming the bulk material — specifically the leather — matched the approved S2 swatch. The PP leather for Style B was assessed against a color-matched reference panel, with a Delta-E color tolerance of ±2.0 agreed between James and LISHANGZI as the bulk acceptance standard.
Both PP samples were approved on Week 14. Bulk production was officially authorized.
For a complete explanation of the sampling stages — S1, S2, and PP — and how they integrate into the full production workflow, see our custom shoe process guide.
Time at this stage: 3 weeks (2 weeks S2 + PP production, 1 week review and approval). Output: all corrections confirmed; dimensioned spec document finalized; bulk production authorized.
Week 15–20: Bulk Production — Inside the Factory
What Happened
With PP approval confirmed, the bulk production order was formally placed: 180 pairs of Style A (Oxford, black, UK sizes 6–12 in agreed size run) and 180 pairs of Style B (Monk Strap, dark cognac, UK sizes 6–12), totaling 360 pairs.
The bulk production process for a Blake stitch dress shoe at LISHANGZI follows a documented sequence:
1. Leather cutting — upper leather cut from approved hides using die-cut press, with grain direction alignment checked per panel
2. Upper preparation — skiving (thinning) of seam allowances, edge painting on visible upper edges
3. Upper stitching — assembly of upper panels, cap-toe attachment stitch (Style A), vamp and quarter panels joined
4. Lasting — upper pulled over last and secured; heel counter inserted and shaped
5. Blake stitching — insole and outsole attached via single-pass Blake stitch through all three layers
6. Sole finishing — edge beveling, burnishing, heel stacking
7. Upper finishing — cream application, brushing, deep matte treatment for Style A
8. Hardware attachment — Monk Strap buckles attached and alignment checked (Style B)
9. Insole logo stamping — Arcfeld logo heat-stamped to confirmed position
10. Final inspection — 100% visual inspection of every pair against the PP specification sheet
The Challenge at This Stage
At Week 17 — midway through production — LISHANGZI's inline QC identified a consistency issue with the deep matte finish on Style A. Approximately 15% of pairs on the line were showing a slightly lighter matte intensity compared to the PP reference panel, traced to a variation in the finishing compound application pressure.
Rather than waiting until pre-shipment to discover this, the inline QC system caught it at the finishing stage. The affected pairs were pulled from the line and re-finished. Production was paused on Style A for 36 hours to recalibrate the finishing station. The timeline was not materially affected — the pause was absorbed within the existing production window.
James was notified by his project contact on the same day the issue was identified, with a clear explanation of the cause, the corrective action taken, and the revised completion date (unchanged). This kind of same-day communication on a production issue — before it becomes a shipment problem — is one of the most important things a factory can do for a brand client. It builds exactly the kind of trust that makes a first-order relationship become a long-term partnership.
Time at this stage: 6 weeks (production commenced Week 15, completed Week 20). Output: 360 pairs produced, 100% inline and final inspection passed.
Week 21–22: Packaging, Quality Audit, and Shipment
What Happened:
The final two weeks of the project covered three sequential stages: packaging and branding application, third-party pre-shipment quality audit, and sea freight dispatch.
Packaging execution:
Arcfeld's private label packaging had been specified and approved separately during the material confirmation stage (Week 3–6), with final packaging production running in parallel with bulk shoe production.
The complete private label package included:
• Custom rigid shoe box with Arcfeld name embossed in antique gold foil on matte black board
• Inner tissue paper in branded charcoal with logo watermark print
• Individual cotton shoe bags with woven brand label
• Hang tag (matte laminated, debossed brand name, care instructions reverse)
• Custom insole with heat-stamped Arcfeld logo (confirmed position from PP approval)
• Outsole heel with Arcfeld name embossed in the rubber heel plug
Total packaging cost: approximately $4.20 per pair — included in the project quote as a fully itemized line.
Pre-shipment quality audit:
James requested a third-party pre-shipment inspection through QIMA, conducted at the LISHANGZI factory before packing. The AQL inspection covered 80 pairs (roughly 22% of the total order) selected randomly across both styles and the full size run. The inspection checked: dimensional conformance against PP spec, finish quality, hardware attachment, stitching integrity, and packaging conformance.
Result: zero critical defects, two minor defects (a single insole offset of 2mm on one pair, and a slight scuff on the toe of one Style B pair identified before packing). Both pairs were pulled and replaced from production surplus. The inspection report was delivered to James within 24 hours of the audit.
Shipment:
360 pairs packed in export cartons were collected from the LISHANGZI factory on Week 22 and dispatched via sea freight from Yantian Port (Shenzhen) to Felixstowe, UK. Transit time: 28 days. Customs clearance in the UK: 3 days. Delivery to Arcfeld's Bristol warehouse: Week 26 from project start (4 weeks of sea freight added to the 22-week production timeline).
For more on the complete production and shipping workflow, see our custom shoe process guide.
The Final Result: From Brief to Bristol in 22 Production Weeks
Here is the complete project timeline at a glance:
| Stage | Weeks | Key Output |
|---|---|---|
| Brief, style selection, last confirmation | 1–2 | Project spec sheet signed; last modification commissioned |
| Material selection and specification | 3–6 | Full material spec confirmed; hardware approved |
| First sample (S1) production and review | 7–11 | 3 feedback items; dimensioned technical drawing produced |
| Correction sample (S2) + PP approval | 12–14 | All corrections confirmed; bulk production authorized |
| Bulk production (360 pairs) | 15–20 | 100% QC passed; packaging produced in parallel |
| Packaging, QC audit, shipment | 21–22 | Zero critical defects; dispatched from Shenzhen |
| Sea freight to UK (Felixstowe) | +4 weeks | Delivered to Bristol warehouse |
Project totals:
• 2 styles developed
• 360 pairs produced
• 3 sample feedback items resolved across 2 sample rounds
• 1 inline production issue caught and corrected before shipment
• 0 critical defects at pre-shipment audit
• 22 weeks production timeline (26 weeks door-to-door including sea freight)
James's assessment of the project: the process was longer than he had expected for the sampling phase — specifically, the creation of the dimensioned technical drawing after S1 added time he had not budgeted for. His advice to other first-time footwear founders: build at least 14 weeks into your sampling budget (not 8), and ask your factory to produce a dimensioned spec sheet before S1, not after it.
What This Project Teaches Every Brand Building Its First Dress Shoe Collection
Six lessons drawn directly from the Arcfeld × LISHANGZI project — applicable to any brand at a similar stage.
Lesson 1: Start with ODM co-development unless you already have a verified tech pack.
A brand without footwear manufacturing experience almost never has a tech pack precise enough for accurate OEM production on the first attempt. ODM co-development — starting from an existing factory last and base pattern, then modifying — is faster, less expensive, and produces a better S1. The Arcfeld project saved approximately $300 in last development costs and 5 weeks of timeline by using an existing Oxford last as the base.
Lesson 2: Brief documents must specify dimensions, not just references.
Every piece of visual reference is open to interpretation. The buckle placement issue in S1 was caused directly by a reference photo rather than a measurement. After the Arcfeld project, any new project at LISHANGZI where a client does not have a tech pack now includes a brief session specifically to assign measurements to all visually specified elements before S1 is commissioned. Ask your factory to do this with you.
Lesson 3: Material risk communication matters more than material selection.
The deep matte finish on Style A was the right choice for the brand. The factory's proactive flagging of the scratch-risk during packing — and the recommendation to use double-tissue protection — prevented what could have been a significant cosmetic defect issue on arrival. Good factories tell you the downstream implications of your material choices. If a factory only says yes to your selections without flagging risk, they are not yet a technical partner.
Lesson 4: Inline QC is worth more than pre-shipment QC.
The finishing consistency issue at Week 17 was caught and corrected before it reached the shipment stage. Pre-shipment QC — whether internal or third-party — can only identify problems after they exist across the full production run. Inline QC catches problems while there is still time to correct them without delaying shipment. Ask any factory you are evaluating to describe their inline QC checkpoints specifically.
Lesson 5: Budget for 2–3 sample rounds, not 1.
Every experienced footwear buyer budgets for at least two sample rounds. First-time brands consistently underbudget here, expecting S1 to be the final sample. On the Arcfeld project, S2 was sufficient — but the dimensioned technical drawing added to the brief documentation after S1 is what made that possible. Without that documentation, a third round would almost certainly have been necessary.
Lesson 6: Packaging development should run in parallel with production, not after it.
Packaging for the Arcfeld project was designed, approved, and produced during the bulk production phase — not sequentially after. This is the correct approach and saves 3–4 weeks on the overall timeline. Brands that wait for bulk production to be complete before commissioning packaging consistently experience unnecessary delays. Start your packaging brief at the same time you authorize bulk production.
To understand how the full production process is structured — from brief to delivery — in a generalized framework, see our detailed custom shoe process guide.
Start Your Own Custom Dress Shoe Project
If you are building a dress shoe collection and the Arcfeld project reflects where you are — brand direction, no tech pack, a clear retail target but no manufacturing experience — LISHANGZI is the right place to start the conversation.
We support ODM co-development, OEM production from your existing tech pack, and private label branding within a single factory relationship. Our dress shoe development library includes Oxford, Derby, Monk Strap, Loafer, and Dress Boot styles with established lasts and tested constructions.
The first step is a project brief — a 15-minute conversation or a one-page brief document. No commitment required.
→ Visit our Custom Dress Shoes Manufacturer page
→ Start your project brief with our team
→ Learn how to choose the right manufacturer for your brand
Frequently Asked Questions
1. How long does it take to develop custom dress shoes from brief to bulk delivery?
Based on the Arcfeld project and our general project experience, the timeline from initial project brief to bulk delivery at your warehouse runs 22–28 weeks for a first order. The production timeline — brief through factory dispatch — is typically 20–24 weeks. Sea freight to Europe or North America adds 3–5 weeks. The largest variable is the sampling phase: ODM-based projects with minor modifications (like Arcfeld) can complete sampling in 8–10 weeks across two rounds. OEM projects with new last development typically require 12–16 weeks of sampling. Reorders are significantly faster — typically 10–14 weeks total — because all development work is already complete. For a stage-by-stage timeline, see our custom shoe process guide.
2. Do I need a tech pack to start developing custom dress shoes with LISHANGZI?
No — and the majority of our first-time footwear clients do not have one when they first contact us. The Arcfeld project is a typical example: the brand arrived with visual references, a clear aesthetic direction, and a retail price target, but no technical documentation. LISHANGZI's co-development process — starting from ODM base styles and building a dimensioned specification through the brief and S1 review process — is specifically designed for this situation. A tech pack is required for full OEM production of a proprietary design, but it can be generated through the co-development process rather than being a prerequisite for starting. If you are unsure which path applies to your project, see our guide on OEM vs ODM vs private label dress shoes.
3. How many sample rounds should I budget for in a custom dress shoe project?
Budget for two to three rounds as a baseline. On the Arcfeld project, two rounds (S1 and S2) plus a pre-production (PP) sample were sufficient. Projects with simpler designs or where the brief is highly documented from the start can sometimes achieve bulk approval after S1 — but planning for S1 only is consistently the single biggest budgeting mistake first-time footwear brands make. Each correction round typically costs 30–60% of the original sampling fee, so the financial impact is manageable — what matters is building the time into your project plan. For a detailed breakdown of sampling costs across different project types, see our guide on custom dress shoes manufacturing cost.
4. What is a pre-production (PP) sample and why does it matter?
A pre-production sample — also called a PP sample or production confirmation sample — is a pair produced specifically from the confirmed bulk material batch, using the main production line rather than the sampling room, after all corrections from S1 and S2 have been signed off. Its purpose is to confirm two things: that the corrections are stable when produced at scale rather than by hand in the sampling room, and that the bulk material (leather, outsole, hardware) matches the approved specification. The PP sample is your final quality gate before bulk production begins. Skipping it — and going directly from S2 approval to bulk — removes the most important check against bulk material substitution or finishing variation. Always request a PP sample, even if your factory does not propose one automatically.
5. What is the difference between inline QC and pre-shipment QC for dress shoes?
Inline quality control refers to inspections conducted during production — at specific assembly checkpoints such as lasting, sole attachment, finishing, and hardware placement — before the product is complete. Problems caught at inline QC can be corrected without impacting the shipment timeline. Pre-shipment QC — whether internal or conducted by a third-party inspector such as QIMA or SGS — is conducted after production is complete and covers finished pairs from the bulk run, typically using AQL statistical sampling. Pre-shipment QC can only confirm or reject what has already been produced. Inline QC is proactive; pre-shipment is reactive. On the Arcfeld project, an inline QC catch at Week 17 prevented a potential finishing defect from reaching the pre-shipment stage. Ask any factory you evaluate to describe their specific inline QC checkpoints, not just their pre-shipment process.
6. How do I specify the details of my design accurately if I don't have a technical background?
The most effective approach is the one used on the Arcfeld project: provide strong visual references in the brief, then use the S1 review as the basis for creating a dimensioned technical document. Your factory should be able to produce a dimensioned specification drawing after S1 — translating every visually evaluated dimension into a measurable number. Once that document exists, every subsequent sample and bulk production run is produced against objective specifications, not visual interpretation. If a factory does not offer to produce this document after S1, ask for it explicitly. It is the single most important document in your production relationship and should be owned jointly by you and your factory.
7. What construction method is best for a mid-premium men's dress shoe brand?
For brands targeting a retail price range of £150–£300 (or $180–$380), Blake stitch is typically the most appropriate construction choice. It offers: a cleaner, lower-profile sole silhouette than Goodyear welt; resolability by a cobbler (extending the product's lifetime narrative); and a cost premium of approximately $4–$8 per pair over cemented construction — which is proportionate to the retail price. Goodyear welt is the correct choice for brands targeting £300+ and positioning within the heritage menswear category — it carries significantly more perceived quality and supports a higher retail price, but adds $10–$20 per pair in factory cost. Cemented construction is appropriate for entry-level price points below £100. For a complete cost comparison across construction methods, see our guide on custom dress shoes manufacturing cost.
8. Can I develop two styles simultaneously in the same project?
Yes — and for most first orders, developing two complementary styles simultaneously is more efficient than developing them sequentially. The sampling schedules can be run in parallel (both styles sample at the same time), the material and hardware approvals overlap, and the bulk production runs can be combined into a single factory order — which typically improves per-pair pricing by combining quantity. The Arcfeld project ran both styles in parallel throughout sampling and production. The main consideration is complexity management: two styles require two separate feedback cycles, two sets of correction documentation, and two PP approvals. If your design brief for each style is clear and well-documented, parallel development is a significant time and cost advantage. If either brief is underspecified, consider sequencing them.
9. How do I protect my design from being sold to other brands by the factory?
Design protection in dress shoe manufacturing operates through several mechanisms. For ODM-based projects — where the design originates from the factory's library — the factory technically owns the base design; your protection comes from negotiating exclusivity terms before production begins, either through a paid exclusivity agreement that removes the style from the factory's general catalog, or by transitioning the style to OEM ownership after the first production run. For OEM projects — where you provided the design or it was co-developed from your brief — you should confirm in writing who owns the last, pattern files, and dimensioned specification documents. At LISHANGZI, these ownership and exclusivity terms are discussed explicitly during the project scoping stage. Never begin sampling without a written confirmation of design ownership and confidentiality terms, regardless of how long you have worked with a factory. For more on how to protect your interests when choosing a manufacturer, see our guide on how to choose a custom dress shoes manufacturer.
10. How do I start a custom dress shoe development project with LISHANGZI?
The starting point is a project brief — either submitted through our inquiry form or discussed in a short video call. A useful brief covers: the style or styles you want to develop (with reference images), the manufacturing model you believe fits your stage (ODM, OEM, or co-development), your target retail price range, your estimated order quantity, and your target delivery timeline. You do not need a tech pack, a confirmed design, or prior manufacturing experience to submit a brief. From the brief, we will confirm which styles from our development library are closest to your vision, provide an indicative quote covering sampling fees and bulk pricing by quantity tier, and outline the project timeline. Response time for a structured project proposal is typically 2 business days. Visit our custom dress shoes manufacturer page to submit your project inquiry, or contact our team directly to schedule a brief call.
