or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Crockett Jones 238 last
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Crockett Jones 238 last

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 
could you please compare 238 last with other c&j lasts? 337 and 240 fit me quite snug, but not uncomfortably tight. 318, 325 and 360 are OK, perhaps a bit roomy. 324 is unbearably narrow for me. I am aware that 238 is known as a narrow C&J last but I don't know whether it is very narrow. Is it even narrower than 348 and even 324?
post #2 of 11
C&J 238 (UK 6E) vs C&J 337 (UK 6E):



I can post comparison pics with the 325 and 324 if you want, although it may take a day or two.

The 238 is narrower than the 337. My shoe trees that fit easily in the 337 are a real struggle to get in and out of the 238.

The fit of the 238 feels similar to the 324 to me, but the shoe tree test again suggests that the 238 is narrower.

The 238 is narrower that the 325, as you probably guessed.

Hope that helps.
post #3 of 11
Thread Starter 
I was hoping that you, the C&J expert, reply to my thread. I am very lucky indeed.

Thank you so much. Your post helped a lot.

BTW, is the below sequence (from narrower to wider) correct in your opinion?

238 < 324 < 317 < 348 < 240 < 337 < 318 < 360 < 325 < 341

I know every foot is different, but your shoe tree test might help. In fact shoe trees also vary but anyhow, your test may be a standard, at least when used with a certain shoe tree model from a certain shoe tree brand.

Please feel free to add any other last that you may have first hand experience.
post #4 of 11
Based on what I currently have on UK 6E fittings, I think it's:

238 < 324 < 337 < 341 < 325

I used to have a pair of Connaughts on the 236 last. From memory, I think it would fall between the 341 and 325.

I do have a pair of shoes on the 348, but I've sized down by half a size, as I find the heel area a bit loose in my normal size. I think lots of forum members have shoes on both the 337 and 348 though, so maybe they can chip in.

No experience with the 317 (isn't this only available in wider fittings?), 240 or 360.

I've tried on shoes on the 318 before, and it's a tricky one: Dartmouths in suede were a nice fit, but in calf they were loose! Everything I've listed so far has been in calf though, so for consistency I would put the 318 between the 337 and 341.

So the revised sequence would be:

238 < 324 < 337 (< 318) < 341 (< 236) < 325
post #5 of 11
now, this is a useful thread, so can anyone comment on 358 last on the handgrade stuff? I tried 348 in E, and it was way too tight even after half size up.
post #6 of 11
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKDKid View Post
Based on what I currently have on UK 6E fittings, I think it's:

238 < 324 < 337 < 341 < 325

I used to have a pair of Connaughts on the 236 last. From memory, I think it would fall between the 341 and 325.

I do have a pair of shoes on the 348, but I've sized down by half a size, as I find the heel area a bit loose in my normal size. I think lots of forum members have shoes on both the 337 and 348 though, so maybe they can chip in.

No experience with the 317 (isn't this only available in wider fittings?), 240 or 360.

I've tried on shoes on the 318 before, and it's a tricky one: Dartmouths in suede were a nice fit, but in calf they were loose! Everything I've listed so far has been in calf though, so for consistency I would put the 318 between the 337 and 341.

So the revised sequence would be:

238 < 324 < 337 (< 318) < 341 (< 236) < 325


My below sequence, as revised, is based on the combination of my experience with certain lasts (318, 324, 325, 341, 337, 360, 240) and other people's posts in various threads. For the purposes of my sequence, I assume that same size (in terms of both length and width) is used for all shoes) and not the suede but the calfskin versions are taken into consideration.

238 < 324 < 317 < 348 < 240 < 330 < 337 < 341 < 236 < 318 < 325 < 360

Please anyone feel free to add any other last that you may have experience or create your own sequence. Of course everybody's feet is different but this can be a good reference.

I will appreciate if my dear forumites comment on the placement of 236 last.
post #7 of 11
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?

Many thanks!
post #8 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by clee1982 View Post
now, this is a useful thread, so can anyone comment on 358 last on the handgrade stuff? I tried 348 in E, and it was way too tight even after half size up.

Does anyone have any experience with the suede Tetbury boot on the 358. I take a US 9d/e and was going to size up to a CJ 8.5e. Now it seems that mightn't be enough.
post #9 of 11
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spark View Post
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?

Many thanks!

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
post #10 of 11
Thread Starter 
Double post
post #11 of 11
Can anyone suggest where last 339 (C&J Kent loafers) might fit into the scheme of things?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Crockett Jones 238 last