Originally Posted by Spark
Is the 360 really that much wider than the 337?
I've seen all sorts of discussion on this, but can't get a feel for how wide it really is -- can anyone confirm its width in relation to the 337?
I think this thread has become too subjective-- First, there is not so much difference amongst the lasts that come after 337, i.e. the ones wider than 337. Second, I do not have equal experience with the shoes that I own. For instance, I very recently bought a monk shoe on 360 last that I have only tried on carpet so far. However, I have worn a pair of my shoes made on 318 last many times. The uppers strechted a bit. Third, I would say, in terms of ball area my feet is a regular fit, however, in terms of instep, my feet is high. As a matter of fact, I might be thinking some lasts are narrow, although they are not indeed.
NONETHELESS, if we take 337 last as basis for a regular list having normal width, I believe my sequence prior to 337 is pretty accurate. The sequence of 348 and 240 may interchange, as I do not have any experience with 348 last, and I placed 348 prior to 240 according to my understanding from other forumites' comments on 348 last. Although I also do not have any experience with 317 last, as far as I understand from other forumites' comments, it is pretty narrow to such that it should be placed prior to both 348 and 240. (Someone please correct me if I am wrong. Some Peal & Co. shoes are made on this last so owners may confirm) As to the sequence coming after 337, please feel free to correct my sequence, but as I said above, unlike the lasts narrower than 337, there are small incrementals amongs that lasts wider than 337, meaning that I would not say one is substantially wider than the other. Nevertheless, as to your question, perhaps it would be correct to interchange 360 last with 325 last. So my revised sequence is as follows:
238 < 324 < 317 < 348 < 240 < 330 < 337 < 341 < 236 < 318 < 360 < 325