Florsheim Yuma

Florsheim Shell Cordovan Yuma

Its been awhile but this post is worth the wait. I am writing about the Florsheim Yuma in Shell Cordovan. The Yuma in “brown” Shell Cordovan is arguably (I am not going to argue), the most sought-after vintage Florsheim model. This post covers two pairs of Yumas – model 93007 made in 1968 and model 97168 from 1991. More on those models later.

Florsheim Yuma Shell Cordovan

The Yuma is a Venetian style loafer with a long vamp and intricately hand-sewn moc toe that frames a large piece of Shell Cordovan. Its profile is very sleek and the portions of the shoe work well together. It has my vote for best-looking Shell Cordovan loafer. It’s a stunning shoe.

Florsheim Shell Cordovan

The Yuma has been referred to as “ultimate in Ivy League footwear” and is mentioned occasionally by bloggers writing about classic Ivy or Trad style. Evidently, it was popular in the Sixties at these Ivy colleges. Unfortunately, I cannot confirm that fact since I didn’t attend or visit an Ivy League school in the 1960s. I wasn’t alive either. I did take a look through my copy of Take Ivy but it was it was too hard to make out the shoes in the photos. Some great OCBD shirts though. (I found Take Ivy to be a bit disturbing in that it recommends you have just four pairs of shoes – “Cordovan Plain toe or saddle shoes in black and brown, classic loafers, boat shoes or sneakers, brown boots”).

Florsheim Yuma 93007

Florsheim Yuma 97168

The earliest reference I could find for the Yuma model in either vintage Florsheim ads or my limited catalog collection was 1962. The Shell Cordovan model number was 93007 and it was apart of the Imperial line of shoes. A pair retailed for $32. The photo below is from the 1962 Florsheim catalog.

1962 Florsheim Catalog

Production of the Shell Cordovan Yuma appears to have been ended in 1968. It does not appear in my 1969 Florsheim catalog. The model went dormant throughout the 1970s and was reintroduced around 1985 as the model 93230 in the Imperial product line. The model 93230 appears to have been produced until 1988. Below is a photo from a 1988 Florsheim Catalog.

1988 Florsheim Catalog

I believe the last run of Shell Cordovan Yumas was during 1991 and 1992. During those years Florsheim came out with the Royal Imperial Yuma and gave it a model number of 97168. The 97168 and 93230 appear nearly identical to me.

1992 Florsheim Catalog

Want a Yuma pair? They are tough to find. I have never seen another pair of the 93007 model new or used on ebay in the past five years. I am sure another pair exists but if you are looking for one … its probably not going to happen. You are 50 years too late. The models 93230 and 97168 are occasionally listed on ebay but still very rare. There might be only five or six listings per year.

Florsheim Shell Cordovan Yuma

Why are there so few Shell Cordovan Yumas on ebay given that it was a popular model? My theory is that people wore them and wore them frequently. The shoes didn’t get stored unworn in their owner’s closet waiting for that special event that never came like we see sometimes with Shell Cordovan long wings. People wore the Yuma often because it is a handsome casual shoe with lots of flair.

Florsheim Shell Cordovan Yuma

Florsheim also made the model in Black Shell Cordovan leather and calfskin. The calfskin models came in a variety of colors including “Forest” green in the mid-1960s. Somewhere someone is rocking that green Yuma. Hopefully.

Florsheim Shell Cordovan

The 93007 and 97168 are very similar in design. The main visual differences are the more rugged moc toe on the 97168 and that the 97168 has a black collar and the 93007 uses a burgundy collar. The 93007 stitching is better on both the upper leather and the welt.

Florsheim Yuma

Florsheim Yuma Shell Cordovan

Florsheim Shell Cordovan Yuma

Underneath, both shoes have a single leather sole but the 93007 has a leather heel with leather and rubber combo top lift while the 97168 has a rubber heel.

Florsheim Sole

Below are more photos of the two pairs. Questions? Please leave a comment below.

Florsheim Shell Cordovan Yuma

Florsheim Shell Cordovan Yuma

Florsheim Shell Cordovan Yuma

Florsheim Imperial


Florsheim Yuma Shell Cordovan

Florsheim 93007

Florsheim 97168

41 thoughts on “Florsheim Shell Cordovan Yuma”

    1. I was thinking of you as well when I looked at the size charts. Sad. But there have been sadder things in history

  1. TWO pair, and in A-1 condition no less! You are amazing David, and THE source for vintage finds in the Holy Grail category!

  2. Fantastic, as always, David. Within minutes of reading your article I miraculously found a pair of 97168s in my size on the bidding site. I think you’re good luck. I’ve never really been a loafer guy but these are just plain cool.

  3. Stellar review! Now I want these. Checked the ‘bay, Dang, just missed a nice pair of 97168 in my 10.5 C for $89.

  4. Great post as always David. I have the Drexel that I was lucky to find on eBay for $69 fantastic shoe I love them. Cheers, DS

  5. Hi David:

    Please take a look at the latest edition of the SF Vintage Shoe thread where I have acquired two pairs of shell Yuma and I’m a little confused as to their numbers, both date and model. Please let me know what you think.

    Best Regards:

    Pete (kilowatts) 20.10.2018

  6. Hi, David! While I don’t consider myself to be a “loafer” guy, I would truly consider these… What beauts! Great review.

    Did you have to recondition these, or were they this good when they arrived from eBay?

  7. Hello – I am fortunate enough to own two pairs of Florsheim Yuma’s – both in black. But the model numbers inside them don’t match up with what you’ve shown above. Here’s the info for each pair – I’m wondering what insight you may have on them. Thanks.

    1.) 92010 FH (or FM?) Size 9 E “Imperial Quality” in cloud-shape script.

    2.) 2F23903 HC Size 8.5 E “Flexible Fiber Insole” – “Royal Imperial” w/ scepter ‘p’

  8. Hi David

    I have just purchased a pair of 97168’s.
    Could you please recommend the best colour polish for these shoes?
    I can’t find any guidance. Your advice would be much appreciated.


    1. I like Allen Edmond Cordovan Cream for color. I also like Collonil 1909 Creme Supreme in neutral and burgundy.

  9. Thank you so much Sir. Good looking pairs of shoes. Sir I have a pair of Florsheim Yuma Shell Cordovan but it is not a 93007 or 97168, it is a 93230. Is it a legit Florsheim yuma?

  10. Holy Grail shoes for me. I lucked into a pair of reissues @ Goodwill this past year. Can’t afford to buy true vintage but it’s tempting. Anyway, patience and a watchful eye found these when I was least looking. I will resole and reheel forever because you just can’t find this look any more. I have a pair of Faconnable made in Italy that look close but not. I have worn these a lot in the summer w khakis and jeans like my Dad and uncles did, and only get compliments and looks. Chicks dig a man in good looking, well cared for shoes. And Yumas get looks.

  11. Hey David – about 18 months back you helped me out on a pair of 93605’s and they are still going strong. Solid eBay purchase… 1977 and tried on once. Love.

    Anyways, i’ve been researching Yumas as of recent and i came across a model that has 5S 33830

    More specifically…


    Surprisingly enough you don’t have this model number in this fantastic post above. Any thoughts on this? Also how do these fit? i’m a 10C in the 93605 so these are definitely not going to fit, but for future reference I’d like to have a good idea. I usually go a half size down with loafers and i’m normally a 10D.

    Thank you!


    1. They look like model 97168. But they have a custom id. Unfortunately I have never worn a pair because I haven’t found one in my size. For $450, you should ask the seller to allow returns for size issues.

  12. Son of a shoe-store owner (who worked though college in the shop) here. The style was ubiquitous in the 1960s. Easily as popular as penny loafers. Every manufacturer made them.

    My father stocked them at various price points. Value (composition sole from Fortune, a Genesco brand), quality (leather soul, slightly rounder toe, from Jarman, another Genesco) and prestige (Bates, which made them in four colors including a loden green grain, and a shell cordo). The brands known for penny loafers made the mocs as well.

    There were some variations, too, popular in the 1960s. A slip on chukka (the gore was under the vamp) and a lace-up (usually two eyelet) blucher.

    The rise of the tubular “Gucci” mocs in the 1970s sort of killed off the Venetian moccasin. The penny loafer survived.

    The only pair (with a traditional leather sole and heel) I’ve been able to buy in recent years was a Tod’s. Found a pair in one of its outlet stores. It’s not in the line today.

    1. Florsheim’s various shell cordo models were never among their most popular sellers. Whether Imperial brogues or hand-sewn moccs, their sales were dwarfed by sales of the same models offered in various calfskins. A few bucks less expensive, easier to care for and, for some, a more flexible/comfortable feel.

      All that said, Florsheim’s cordo models were low but steady sellers for a lot of years, and it’s interesting to learn folks are still appreciating them today!

  13. By some freakish coincidence, my mother bought me a pare of these while I was in high school in the late sixties. They had inadvertently been placed on a “discount table” at a local mom and pop shoe store. My family certainly couldn’t afford premium shoes, although my Mom always tried to get us the best she could afford. I wore them and abused them for years and didn’t do anything to take care of them. They were very comfortable. Sometime in the early 80’s I finally noticed the brand on the shoe. They were getting ragged. I went to the Florsheim store at the mall. wondering if I could get them resoled or if I could afford a new pair. The salesman told me they were Yuma’s. He had just sold his last pair for over $300. He told me they were made from the rump of a horse in Spain, and would always hold up better than any other shoe. Unfortunately the salesman also told me they were too far gone to get resoled. I was disappointed.

  14. Hello David,
    I have a black pair of Yumas with the following details.
    12 D 367083 II

    Are they the genuine article?
    Thanks, Chris.

    1. The 72195 is a Yuma but not Shell Cordovan. The pair that i have seen had creases. Shell Cordovan doesn’t crease.

  15. The pictures on the 1991-1992 catalog look especially fine. Could you publish a copy of it? And have you considered starting a Youtube channel? Anyway, thank you for your site. I use like my favorite coffee table book and has given many hours of pleasure. Thank you again.

    1. Thanks. I am going to publish more catalogs but not sure when I would get to that Florsheim catalog. There are not too many interesting Florsheim shoes in the early 1990s.

  16. Hi David,

    I just got a 93230. I was suprised with the sizing of the Yuma. It runs very small. I’m regularly an 8D in 93602, but this one fits perfect. I measured the Yuma with my other Florsheims, it’s about the same in width and length to the 8D, but with a narrower heel. If I’d received a TTS 8D, I doubt if it fits me. Is this true most of the time or just a production fluke?

  17. Aloha David, I purchased a pair of Yuma’s from “Classic Shoes For Men” that are labeled:

    9 1/2 E 357979 19
    72183 K. G.

    Would this model be leather or Shell Cordovan and would you possibly know the year they were made? Thank you so much.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *